[42:33] Everyone, my name is Jan Liot, mayor and

[42:36] chair of this council meeting. Before

[42:38] continuing, we will rise from close

[42:40] session. May I have councelor Roberts

[42:42] read the motion in its entirety, please?

[42:49] » Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved by

[42:50] myself, seconded by councelor Ernshaw.

[42:52] Recommendation that council rise from

[42:54] close session held August 25th to

[42:56] reconvene in open session at 6:45 p.m.

[43:01] >> Okay, we will call for that vote.

[43:04] >> Opening voting.

[43:11] » Closing voting

[43:14] » that carries unanimously.

[43:17] So during close session, discussions

[43:19] occurred with council and staff related

[43:20] to confidential negotiations,

[43:22] development ch uh charges relief program

[43:24] application update, and a verbal update

[43:26] regarding a planning matter. Please note

[43:29] that city of C Cambridge Council

[43:30] meetings are broadcast on the city's

[43:32] YouTube page and are archived on the

[43:34] city's website. It is imperative that we

[43:37] as city council promote public

[43:38] participation using a variety of

[43:40] methods, including YouTube. On that

[43:42] note, our last council meeting had 500

[43:45] views on YouTube and two delegations. As

[43:47] a reminder for speakers tonight, both

[43:49] staff and delegates alike, please be

[43:51] sure that you stand 6 to 8 in from the

[43:53] microphone at the presenter's podium for

[43:55] optimal sound quality. There is a remote

[43:58] at the podium you may use to advance

[44:00] your slides. In the event of an

[44:02] emergency, please evacuate council

[44:04] chambers using the nearest exit

[44:06] staircase. If you require assistance,

[44:09] please see the clerk's staff. They will

[44:11] provide you with support to exit the

[44:13] facility. Once you have evacuated the

[44:16] building, please gather outside of city

[44:17] hall in the farmers parking market

[44:20] parking lot and await further

[44:21] instructions. I will now introduce

[44:24] council. Councelor Hamilton, councelor, Kimson, councelor Roberts,

[44:30] councelor Cooper, councelor Schwerry,

[44:32] councelor Ernshaw, and councelor Divine.

[44:36] We will now sing the national anthem.

[44:37] And if you are able, please rise and

[44:39] follow along.

[45:04] » [music]

[45:08] » Oh Canada, [singing and music]

[45:12] our home and native land [music]

[45:18] true

[45:20] love [singing]

[45:22] in [music] all of

[45:27] With glowing [singing] hearts [music] we

[45:30] see

[45:32] the true north strong and [singing] free

[45:37] from [music]

[45:39] wide open

[45:42] wee [music and singing]

[45:48] [music]

[45:49] [singing]

[45:53] glory. [music]

[45:54] We are set and free.

[45:58] Oh,

[46:00] [music] we stand [singing] on guard for

[46:05] the

[46:09] [singing]

[46:10] we stand on

[46:13] [music]

[46:15] [singing] the

[46:21] [clears throat]

[46:28] We embrace our shared responsibility

[46:30] with the First Nations people to take

[46:32] care of this earth and its creatures. We

[46:35] can only do so by walking the path as

[46:37] partners stewarding this land as we've

[46:39] been given the duty together to live in

[46:41] balance and harmony with all living

[46:43] things. We acknowledge and respect the

[46:45] Inishab Chinctton also known as the

[46:48] neutrals and the Hodnoni peoples who

[46:51] came before us and who we live amongst

[46:53] by honoring this truth of past and

[46:55] present. May we come to true

[46:57] reconciliation through listening,

[46:58] reflecting and learning. Before I begin,

[47:02] I would like to take a moment to

[47:04] acknowledge and thank everyone for

[47:05] joining us at this meeting this evening.

[47:07] We do appreciate your participation as

[47:11] we come together to serve the community.

[47:12] I ask that we create a welcoming and

[47:14] positive environment for everyone that

[47:16] includes respect, kindness, and

[47:18] inclusion. Together, we can make this

[47:21] meeting space one where those three

[47:22] things are at the heart of everything we

[47:24] do. That this is a safe space. Behavior

[47:28] that is disrespectful, disruptive,

[47:30] aggressive, or intimidating will result

[47:32] in those individuals being asked to

[47:34] leave. Again, as a reminder to council,

[47:36] please ensure you are speaking directly

[47:38] into the microphone so members of the

[47:40] public, both in the audience and at

[47:41] home, can hear you. I notice when some

[47:44] counselors are speaking, they tend to

[47:46] turn their heads away from the mic

[47:48] towards the audience or towards this the

[47:50] front. When you do that, your voice is

[47:53] not audible to everybody in the room.

[47:56] This evening we have one external

[47:58] presentation for from Richard Kelly

[48:00] Roots of GSP Group regarding the

[48:03] recommendation to approve an official

[48:04] plan amendment and zoning bylaw

[48:06] amendment for 8 Scoffield Street. As is

[48:09] our usual practice, we will first hear

[48:11] presentations from consultants and

[48:12] applicants followed by delegations from

[48:14] members of the public before proceeding

[48:17] to consider staff reports. Welcome, Mr.

[48:20] Roots. Are you here? Oh,

[48:24] thank you for joining us. Please note

[48:25] you will have five minutes to address

[48:27] council this evening.

[48:33] » Thank you, Madame Mayor. If I could have

[48:35] the clerk pull up the presentation

[48:37] slide.

[48:41] Thank you. Uh good evening, Madame

[48:43] Mayor, members of council and and the

[48:45] public. My name is Richard Kelly Ritz.

[48:47] I'm a planner at GSP Group and I'm here

[48:49] representing the applicant for the zone

[48:51] change application and official plan

[48:53] amendment at 8 Scoffield Street. As a

[48:56] highle reminder to council, uh the

[48:58] application is for a 72 unit mid-rise

[49:01] building with five levels of residential

[49:03] and two levels of structured parking.

[49:17] As council may recall, this application

[49:19] was previously um before you at the June

[49:22] council meeting uh recommended by staff

[49:24] for approval. Uh council deferred the

[49:26] application to allow for additional

[49:27] discussions between um ourselves as the

[49:30] applicant team and the adjacent property

[49:31] owners. Um those conversations have

[49:34] since occurred uh in July and I can give

[49:36] a high level overview of the outcome of

[49:37] those conversations in the following

[49:39] slides.

[49:43] So the two key abuing property owners is

[49:45] O as auto repair garage on Queen Street

[49:47] and then the Legion site immediately

[49:49] next door. Uh so we met with Heather the

[49:51] owner of Auto Repair uh in July here at

[49:54] city hall. Uh discussed at a high level

[49:56] some of the details of the application

[49:58] in terms of when construction might

[49:59] start um outlining uh how much parking

[50:02] is provided and how this how this has

[50:04] been increased from previous proposals.

[50:07] um how the storm water runoff design uh

[50:09] for the site is meant to contain and

[50:11] direct runoff away from her site. And uh

[50:14] through our conversations with Heather,

[50:16] it became clear that her primary concern

[50:18] is really just around construction

[50:19] impacts to uh the building itself. Um as

[50:22] Auto Repair Garage, as many in the

[50:24] community know, has been around a long

[50:25] time. The building is, I believe, over

[50:27] 100 years old. And she was just

[50:29] concerned around construction impacts to

[50:30] the building itself, the foundation from

[50:32] any construction that would happen next

[50:33] door. Um so following our meeting here

[50:35] at city hall um my client the developer

[50:38] for the eight scopfield site uh

[50:40] committed to Heather that um he would

[50:42] coordinate documenting the existing

[50:44] condition of her building before any

[50:46] construction would start on uh the eight

[50:49] scal site. So this really seemed to

[50:51] provide some reassurances to Heather um

[50:53] that there'd be a point in time

[50:54] reference for the condition of her

[50:55] building um ahead of any construction

[50:58] starting for eight sc. So, um, following

[51:01] those conversations, I'm reassured and I

[51:03] understand Heather's concerns have been

[51:05] addressed as well. Um, for the zone

[51:06] change application,

[51:09] we met with the Legion board in July as

[51:12] well um, next door uh, at the Legion

[51:14] property, discussed again some details

[51:16] of the application in terms of when

[51:18] construction might start, uh, specific

[51:20] construction methods that would be used

[51:21] such as the underground parking

[51:23] structure being uh, constructed fairly

[51:25] close to their property line. Uh my

[51:27] understanding of the key legions

[51:28] concerns was just that they're um making

[51:30] sure for them they want to be involved

[51:32] in the process and that in particular

[51:34] the zone change decision before council

[51:36] this evening is not them um missing the

[51:38] boat or missing some key piece of

[51:40] information. Um through our

[51:41] conversations u clarified that this is

[51:44] really just the first step in the

[51:45] process. there's still a site plan

[51:47] application, building uh permits to

[51:49] come. And uh we also made clear that the

[51:52] Legion will be a partner, a key

[51:53] stakeholder in the project and that

[51:55] construction really couldn't proceed

[51:56] without their sign off. Um if there's

[51:59] any uh temporary construction works that

[52:01] would occur on their lands, um they

[52:03] would need to sign off on that. um as

[52:06] well as if there's any uh trees that are

[52:08] being taken off uh removed along the

[52:10] shared property line, uh they would need

[52:13] um permission from the Legion for that

[52:15] as well. Um so they were reassured that

[52:17] through those future negotiations,

[52:19] discussions with them that any concerns

[52:20] that they might have going forward could

[52:22] be addressed and that this is still a

[52:23] very early part of the process.

[52:26] So I'm confident that our discussions

[52:29] with the Legion were productive and

[52:30] addressed their concerns uh for the

[52:31] application before you this evening.

[52:35] I'll lastly mention just for council's

[52:37] information um that any tenants moving

[52:40] into the new rental building at aid

[52:42] Scoffield um would have a noise warning

[52:44] clause uh provided to them advising them

[52:46] of any uh noise impacts that uh from

[52:49] abuing property. So the Legion and Auto

[52:51] Repair. Uh so this would just make it

[52:53] clear to them up front that they would

[52:54] be aware of any noise sources whether

[52:56] it's from Legion events or the horseshoe

[52:58] pits. I'm just making it clear that um

[53:01] they would know this ahead of time

[53:02] before moving in so that the Legion and

[53:05] Os Repair would could continue their

[53:07] existing operations and wouldn't have to

[53:08] change because of a new building here at

[53:09] a schoolfield.

[53:12] That concludes my remarks. I continue to

[53:14] be in support of the staff

[53:16] recommendation of approval for the

[53:17] application and I'm available for any

[53:19] further questions of council. Thank you.

[53:21] Before we proceed with questions, um,

[53:27] a reminder to members of council that

[53:29] the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act

[53:31] requires council members to declare any

[53:33] director and direct uninary interest in

[53:35] relation to a matter under

[53:36] consideration. Are there any

[53:38] declarations this evening?

[53:41] Seeing none, councelor.

[53:43] >> So, councelor Dvine, you have a

[53:46] conflict.

[53:49] >> I'm a member of the Hesper Legion. I'm

[53:51] not on the executive, but I am a member

[53:53] of the Hesper Legion. Would that be

[53:54] considered a conflict?

[53:56] >> No.

[54:00] » Um, typically, councelor, Madame Mayor,

[54:02] we would advise that you uh reach out to

[54:04] the integrity commissioner for specific

[54:06] advice.

[54:07] >> Do you want me to call him now?

[54:11] » It's up to you, counselor.

[54:16] » You're not. You're you're allowed to be

[54:17] a member of any organization. I would

[54:20] think so. Not I'm not on the executive.

[54:22] >> No.

[54:23] >> Yeah. Probably everybody in this room is

[54:26] >> there are exemptions within the

[54:28] municipal conflict of interest act as

[54:29] well that speak to that.

[54:30] >> Yeah.

[54:32] >> Councelor Roberts.

[54:35] >> Thanks Mayor Jan through you and thank

[54:37] you for your presentation and thanks for

[54:38] meeting with the the adjacent property

[54:40] owners. That was great. I just have a

[54:41] question. And I noticed in your drawing

[54:44] um for your parking, the the lower

[54:46] parking level and the upper parking

[54:47] level um for some reason you have the

[54:49] barrierfree spots the furthest away from

[54:51] the elevator. And I'm just a little

[54:53] confused because that means that folks

[54:55] who potentially have mobility concerns

[54:57] would have to navigate through parking

[54:59] where people could be backing out and

[55:01] driving around to get to the elevator.

[55:03] Was there a specific reason why that was

[55:04] done that way? I've never seen that

[55:05] before.

[55:07] >> Uh through the mayor to you, Councelor

[55:08] Roberts. Yes, we've received that

[55:10] feedback um already and certainly

[55:12] something we'd address at site plan

[55:13] approval. The interior layout of the um

[55:17] proposed development, it can always be

[55:18] refined after the zone change stage. So,

[55:20] yeah, absolutely. We've heard that and

[55:22] we'll we'll look to move it to the front

[55:23] of the building.

[55:26] >> Councelor Schwar.

[55:29] >> Thank you, Mayor Ligan.

[55:31] [cough and clears throat]

[55:32] Um just my question which sorry my

[55:35] throat um is I my just concern with this

[55:39] whole thing is going up the hill and

[55:42] where people are exiting um it's just

[55:44] like a very dangerous section um

[55:47] especially in the winter time. How would

[55:49] that be? Like, have you talked to

[55:52] anybody? Like, how could you um mediate

[55:55] that? Because in the winter, if they're

[55:58] coming out, you're, you know, somebody's

[56:00] going up the hill and if you know it

[56:02] just it's you got freezing rain,

[56:06] like what safety measures are in place?

[56:09] >> Uh through humanity, counselor Shuri.

[56:12] Yes, great question. Um yeah, it is a

[56:15] very steep hill on on Scoffield. Um

[56:18] there are two parking garage entrances

[56:20] and exits for the site. One for the

[56:21] lower level and one for the upper level.

[56:23] Um and yes, certainly I hear you on

[56:25] coming out onto Scoffield Street, how

[56:26] that might work in terms of ice impacts,

[56:28] things like that. So naturally, the city

[56:30] would would maintain the road from ICE

[56:32] perspective. But on the private side of

[56:34] the development itself, um that's

[56:35] something that we could explore further

[56:37] through the site plan approval process,

[56:38] like the more detailed design for the

[56:40] building. Um, I've seen instances where

[56:42] you could have signage um, warning

[56:44] vehicles exiting the new building um,

[56:46] you know, to be aware of oncoming

[56:47] traffic. Um, I've seen mirrors used as

[56:49] well. Maybe you've seen those in parking

[56:51] garages that could be concave to give a

[56:53] little bit of a wider view of the street

[56:54] for oncoming vehicles. So, um, yeah, no

[56:57] commitments at this stage of the process

[57:00] at the zone change stage, but absolutely

[57:02] I think that is something that should be

[57:03] looked at going forward. Um, I imagine

[57:05] city transportation staff um would also

[57:07] have some comments on just safety of

[57:09] entering and exiting the site through

[57:10] the the site plan process to come.

[57:12] >> All right. Thank you,

[57:14] >> Councelor Kempson.

[57:20] » Thank you very much, Mayor Jan, and

[57:21] through you. Um, thanks for your

[57:23] presentation and for meeting with the

[57:25] neighboring property owners. Um I'll

[57:27] note that in the presentation um there's

[57:30] mention about the right of way for

[57:32] sidewalks and utilities and it indicates

[57:35] that the updated drawing submitted

[57:37] include drawings to demonstrate that a

[57:39] sidewalk and utilities could be

[57:41] accommodating within the existing right

[57:42] of way. Have there been any discussions

[57:45] as to whether or not a sidewalk is going

[57:47] to be put in there? And I expect that um

[57:50] if it could be that would help to

[57:52] address some of councelor Shwer's

[57:53] concerns.

[57:55] >> Uh through the mayor, if I could have

[57:57] the clerk pull up the slide deck again.

[58:00] Um and if you're able to go to slide 30,

[58:03] I could navigate there as well.

[58:16] I can uh start to answer uh the

[58:18] question. Um yes. So um and city staff

[58:21] may wish to expand on this further. It's

[58:23] my understanding there are no plans in

[58:25] the next 10 years at least to build

[58:26] sidewalks on Scoffield Street. Um that

[58:29] being said, it was a priority of the

[58:30] city that we demonstrate that um there

[58:33] is room for a sidewalk on the existing

[58:35] city land um here um if one is

[58:38] constructed in the future. Um, and I can

[58:41] navigate to that slide here. It's a

[58:43] little further on. Um, but some

[58:45] engineering drawings were prepared as

[58:48] part of the submission package that

[58:50] demonstrated that on city land there

[58:52] could be a sidewalk that's shown in blue

[58:54] here on the screen and that's fully on

[58:56] the the city rightway. So, um, yeah,

[59:00] that was demonstrated that it could be

[59:01] provided. City staff, engineering, and

[59:03] transportation were satisfied with that

[59:05] through the resubmission.

[59:06] >> Thank you,

[59:08] Councelor Hamilton.

[59:13] Thank you, Mayor Li and through you and

[59:14] thanks very much for your presentation.

[59:16] I know when the Legion presented to us,

[59:18] excuse me, um they were very uh they

[59:21] stressed that horseshoes was a key

[59:23] element of the activity of the group. Um

[59:25] can you just reaffirm that on page nine

[59:28] that the clause the type C clause saying

[59:31] sound from these facilities may times be

[59:32] audible. Does that allow their horseshoe

[59:35] um facility to continue as is or are

[59:38] there going to have to be any

[59:38] alterations to it?

[59:40] >> Uh through the mayor to you, Councelor

[59:42] Hamilton. Yeah, the Legion would be able

[59:43] to continue their horseshoe pits as is.

[59:45] Uh all residents moving into this new

[59:47] building would be warned of all noise

[59:48] sources from the Legion and uh the auto

[59:50] repair site including horseshoe pits,

[59:53] events, things like that. So there

[59:54] should be no impact whatsoever to their

[59:56] ability to continue that going forward.

[59:58] Thank you,

[59:59] >> Councelor Divine.

[1:00:01] >> Yes, thank you chair. Thank you for your

[1:00:02] presentation and thank you for meeting

[1:00:04] with the uh uh the two property owners

[1:00:07] in either side. I do have a concern. All

[1:00:10] right. As we know, things run downhill.

[1:00:14] Gravity is a wonderful thing. What are

[1:00:18] you going to do

[1:00:20] to

[1:00:22] stop water from running down ontos?

[1:00:27] Because once that right now there's no there's no building there

[1:00:31] obviously. Okay. And the ground will

[1:00:33] absorb a fair bit because it's it's a

[1:00:35] treed property. Okay. What are we going

[1:00:38] to do from from uh water not going down

[1:00:41] to us? Can you explain that to me

[1:00:44] please?

[1:00:46] >> Yep. Through the mayor you counselor

[1:00:48] Divine. Um yeah, [clears throat] one of

[1:00:51] the benefits of being able to redesign a

[1:00:54] site um like this for new development is

[1:00:56] that you can have a lot more control

[1:00:58] over where storm water goes. Yes, the

[1:00:59] site is vegetated treed today. Um but

[1:01:02] there still would be some uncontrolled

[1:01:04] runoff that would go from this property

[1:01:05] onto auto repair garage. Um with this

[1:01:09] site, the rain water would be caught um

[1:01:11] on the roof of the building and then

[1:01:12] funneled out onto the municipal um storm

[1:01:15] system onto Scoffield Street. So,

[1:01:17] because the building is um you know a

[1:01:20] hard surface, it would be able to

[1:01:22] capture most of the water that um falls

[1:01:24] onto the site since the building covers

[1:01:25] most of the property and then funnel

[1:01:27] that right out onto Scoffield Street.

[1:01:29] The um if we look on the top left of the

[1:01:32] screen here, the table and just in that

[1:01:34] 5-year column, [snorts] the top number

[1:01:37] is how much water is flowing currently

[1:01:39] from Scoffield onto Odds Auto Repair and

[1:01:42] the number at the bottom is how much is

[1:01:44] projected to flow there post

[1:01:46] development. So you can see it's a

[1:01:48] pretty significant reduction and that's

[1:01:49] just because there's much more of an

[1:01:50] ability to control where storm water is running when you're building the site

[1:01:54] like this.

[1:01:56] >> Okay. Thank you. Because if that if that

[1:01:58] gets flooded that would just be disaster

[1:02:00] for them with the equipment in there.

[1:02:02] All right. Thank you.

[1:02:04] >> Um Mr. Kelly Roots when you speak I

[1:02:07] think it was slide eight um to do with

[1:02:10] your conversations with the Legion. Um

[1:02:13] you spoke about uh future construction

[1:02:16] related agreements will be required. Is

[1:02:18] there a paper trail on this currently?

[1:02:20] like are there, you know, you you're

[1:02:23] standing up there saying it, but what type of conversations on paper have

[1:02:30] you had with the Legion that will assure

[1:02:33] them that you're going to do this and

[1:02:34] that will assure staff and ourselves

[1:02:36] that you're going to

[1:02:39] have these conversations and um with

[1:02:41] them and and that their concerns are

[1:02:43] going to be addressed.

[1:02:45] >> Yeah. To you, Madame Mayor. So yes, all

[1:02:47] of this um was communicated with them by

[1:02:49] email following our our conversation

[1:02:50] with them in person in July. um in terms

[1:02:53] of committing to future construction

[1:02:54] related agreements. Um the key thing as

[1:02:56] I mentioned during my presentation is

[1:02:58] that um you know today whether there's a

[1:03:01] paper trail or not like the reality is

[1:03:03] there will need to be like the legion

[1:03:05] will have to sign off on um future

[1:03:08] construction for a Scoffield because the

[1:03:10] site needs the legion to proceed. Um

[1:03:13] whether it's um temporary construction

[1:03:15] works on their site um they would have

[1:03:17] to get the legion's permission for that.

[1:03:20] removing trees that are on the shared

[1:03:21] property line. The Legion would have to

[1:03:23] sign off on that. So, in other words, um

[1:03:26] this the construction for a lot of it

[1:03:28] will run through the Legion and they'll

[1:03:30] have an opportunity um to make sure that

[1:03:33] all of their concerns are addressed. So,

[1:03:34] the construction couldn't proceed

[1:03:35] without their sign off and their sign

[1:03:37] off um they've reiterated, you know,

[1:03:40] they wouldn't naturally sign off unless

[1:03:41] they're um assured that all their

[1:03:43] concerns have been addressed.

[1:03:45] >> Okay. Thank you. I see no more

[1:03:47] questions. Thank you.

[1:03:52] Okay. So, next up we have some

[1:03:55] delegations. We have um Don Hoskins. Uh

[1:04:00] are you in the room?

[1:04:04] >> Oh, sorry. She's virtual. Um she is

[1:04:08] speaking on the same item.

[1:04:15] » Hello. Can you hear me?

[1:04:17] >> Yes, we can. Can you speak louder

[1:04:19] though?

[1:04:20] >> Yes. Sorry. Can you hear me now?

[1:04:22] >> Yes, we can. Welcome, Don. You'll have

[1:04:24] five minutes.

[1:04:26] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:04:28] >> Good evening, Mayor Liot, council, city

[1:04:30] staff, and members of our community. My

[1:04:32] name is Don Hoskins, and I live directly

[1:04:34] across from this proposed development on

[1:04:35] Courtney Street. I have stood before

[1:04:37] council a few times prior. However, my

[1:04:39] concerns still remain. I strongly

[1:04:41] disagree with city staff's

[1:04:42] recommendation to approve this

[1:04:43] development and recommend council reject

[1:04:45] it. I want to focus on safety,

[1:04:47] accessibility, parking, and lastly, the

[1:04:49] environment and placemaking. Milfield

[1:04:51] Street is steep, narrow, and without

[1:04:53] sidewalks, presenting multiple hazards.

[1:04:55] Traffic on Queen Street is already quite

[1:04:57] steady, and increasing population here

[1:04:58] will significantly amplify that. We need

[1:05:01] to consider the additional challenges

[1:05:02] for emergency crew, especially large

[1:05:04] fire trucks, a problem that we already

[1:05:06] know is a current threat to operations.

[1:05:09] This May, our fire chief, Damon Jameson,

[1:05:11] with 34 years of emergency experience,

[1:05:13] address concerns, citing, "We need to

[1:05:16] work collectively and help mitigate the

[1:05:17] overlooked challenges that newer

[1:05:19] subdivisions and narrow streets afford,"

[1:05:21] highlighting a concerning trend and

[1:05:23] issue with narrow streets and denser

[1:05:25] housing. While there are plans for

[1:05:27] future sidewalks, those are a decade out

[1:05:29] and appear to encroach on the existing

[1:05:30] roadway, causing further narrowing.

[1:05:33] Scoffield is a huge slip and fall risk

[1:05:35] with or without sidewalks and keeping

[1:05:36] them clear with more road salt risks our

[1:05:38] sensitive waterways via runoff and the

[1:05:40] sensitive ecosystem of the Speed River

[1:05:42] just downhill. This slope presents a

[1:05:45] hazard to traffic moving both up and

[1:05:47] down the hill, especially in slippery

[1:05:48] conditions. Parking is an ongoing issue

[1:05:51] for residents in our city as a whole. On

[1:05:53] street parking has recently been limited

[1:05:54] in the nearby neighborhood. This

[1:05:56] compounds further when we have events at

[1:05:58] the Allegiance or film crew. At those

[1:06:00] times, our roads and surrounding

[1:06:02] neighborhood often have bumper-to-bumper

[1:06:04] parking and an increase in traffic as

[1:06:05] guests look for availability. This

[1:06:07] further narrows roadways, increases risk

[1:06:10] to pedestrians, and decreases

[1:06:11] accessibility for emergency crew.

[1:06:14] Lastly, but just as important, we must

[1:06:16] consider the environmental and

[1:06:17] placemaking impacts that developing this

[1:06:19] land will have. Thanks to the site's

[1:06:21] unique topography, the existing mature

[1:06:23] trees tower over Green Street. This

[1:06:25] provides a sense of place for those

[1:06:27] entering the central corridor to our

[1:06:28] Hesler core and business area. The

[1:06:31] mature trees also provide free ecosystem

[1:06:33] services and aren't simply replaceable.

[1:06:36] Sure, trees can be planted elsewhere,

[1:06:37] but there's a large gap in time for them

[1:06:39] to reach maturity and provide the same

[1:06:41] level of service as the trees there now.

[1:06:43] This little slice of mature urban forest

[1:06:45] offers a buffer zone for wildlife, one

[1:06:47] that is very active and that I have

[1:06:49] directly seen and been a very small part

[1:06:51] of. Let me share a quick story about

[1:06:53] that by introducing you to our resident

[1:06:55] groundhog Hogy. I promise that this is

[1:06:58] relevant. 2025 was our first year with a

[1:07:00] little creature. And he was a

[1:07:01] bittersweet guest. On the one part, he

[1:07:03] reminded me of my dear late grandmother,

[1:07:05] as we would always go see groundhogs on

[1:07:07] groundhog day. On the other hand, he was

[1:07:09] a ravenous feast who wasn't shy about

[1:07:11] making my vegetable garden his own

[1:07:13] personal feast. Least to say, in the

[1:07:15] early days, after all the trouble that

[1:07:16] comes with seed starting and tending a

[1:07:18] vegetable garden, I was not impressed.

[1:07:20] After some troubleshooting, probably a

[1:07:22] bad choice of words, we figured out how

[1:07:24] to coexist. I left a small patch of

[1:07:26] clovers for him to mow and put out some

[1:07:28] fencing along the pride's vegetables,

[1:07:30] giving him some here and there when our

[1:07:32] harvest was abundant. In the final days

[1:07:34] of summer, as weather started to cool,

[1:07:36] our neighbors sent us a photo of Hogi on

[1:07:38] the loose. He was heading off our

[1:07:40] property and into the great beyond. My

[1:07:42] partner and I were a little sad to see

[1:07:44] him go and hoped to see him the

[1:07:45] following spring. We were relieved to

[1:07:47] see him return. We now understand that

[1:07:50] our home is his summer den providing

[1:07:51] food and safety while that forest slated

[1:07:54] for development is his winter den

[1:07:56] providing shelter and cover during

[1:07:58] hibernation. I pride myself in taking

[1:08:00] every opportunity I can to help make my

[1:08:03] backyard function as part of the

[1:08:04] ecosystem. We leave a pile of leaves for

[1:08:06] winter critters, delay spring yard work

[1:08:08] and the sort. Our yard is an active

[1:08:10] wildlife hub full of birds, bees,

[1:08:12] fireflies, and even the odd toad. Part

[1:08:15] of that vivaceious activity has been in

[1:08:17] part thanks to Hogi as his home that

[1:08:19] forest has housed a variety of other

[1:08:21] creatures and his services play an

[1:08:23] undeniable role in our ecosystem. His

[1:08:25] presence has now become a welcome part

[1:08:27] in our routine.

[1:08:30] Our city needs safe, affordable housing,

[1:08:32] something this development does not seem

[1:08:34] to provide. Second to that, this

[1:08:36] development threatens current and future

[1:08:38] resident safety, road access, and will

[1:08:40] remove mature trees that provide free

[1:08:42] ecosystem services, water control,

[1:08:44] including that from properties at higher

[1:08:47] elevation and play a significant role in

[1:08:49] placemaking. I will kindly ask council

[1:08:51] to review the writeups, photos, and

[1:08:53] videos submitted prior, highlighting

[1:08:55] these issues and beyond. We have a

[1:08:57] surplus of land available beyond 2015.

[1:09:00] This land is not needed as development,

[1:09:02] but rather to continue serving its

[1:09:04] existing function and purpose. I thank

[1:09:06] you greatly for your time and

[1:09:08] consideration.

[1:09:11] >> Thank you, Don. Are there any questions

[1:09:12] for Don?

[1:09:15] >> I see none. Thank you.

[1:09:17] >> Thank you.

[1:09:19] >> Next up, Melissa Derell with BU Urban

[1:09:22] regarding a motion reducing costs and

[1:09:25] delays in development approvals. You

[1:09:27] have no presentation. Correct, Melissa?

[1:09:29] >> Thank you. Great. Okay, you have five

[1:09:31] minutes.

[1:09:33] [clears throat]

[1:09:33] >> Excuse me. Well, good evening, Mayor

[1:09:36] Liot, members of council, staff, and

[1:09:38] community members. My name is Melissa

[1:09:40] Durl, and I'm the executive officer of

[1:09:42] Build Urban, a group representing nearly

[1:09:44] 20 urban, residential, and commercial

[1:09:47] developers. I'm here today to urge

[1:09:49] council to support Council Schwar's

[1:09:52] motion to reduce costs and delays in the

[1:09:54] planning process. First, I'd like to

[1:09:56] thank councelor Sherry for bringing this

[1:09:58] motion forward. In the development

[1:10:00] industry, time is money. Governments at

[1:10:03] every level have taken steps to address

[1:10:04] the financial side of housing, from

[1:10:07] reducing development charges to cutting

[1:10:09] HST for first-time home buyers, and the

[1:10:12] planning approvals process deserves the

[1:10:14] same attention. Every month, a project

[1:10:17] sits in approvals process adds costs,

[1:10:20] financing, property taxes, and

[1:10:22] consultant fees. City staff have a

[1:10:25] responsibility to conduct thorough

[1:10:27] reviews and ensure applications meet the

[1:10:29] city standards and we support that. What

[1:10:31] our members are asking for is greater

[1:10:33] clarity. Why an additional study is

[1:10:36] required, what it's meant to address,

[1:10:39] and what it adds in time and cost. That

[1:10:42] brings me to the issue that's become

[1:10:44] increasingly challenging for our members

[1:10:46] and a key component of this motion,

[1:10:48] which is thirdparty peer reviews. In

[1:10:52] simple terms, a developer submits an

[1:10:54] application supported by professional

[1:10:56] studies prepared by qualified engineers,

[1:10:59] consultants, and other experts. Those

[1:11:02] materials are then reviewed as part of

[1:11:03] the city's development and approval

[1:11:05] process.

[1:11:07] However, sometimes during that review,

[1:11:08] the city requires the developer to pay

[1:11:10] for another consultant to independently

[1:11:13] review that work that a qualified

[1:11:15] professional has already completed.

[1:11:18] There may be circumstances where an

[1:11:20] additional review is warranted and we

[1:11:22] understand that. Our concern is when

[1:11:24] peer review becomes an added layer

[1:11:26] without a clear explanation of why it's

[1:11:28] necessary or what specific gap it's

[1:11:31] meant to close. We're increasingly

[1:11:33] seeing these reviews requested across

[1:11:35] the region for heritage, engineering,

[1:11:38] wind, sound, and environmental studies.

[1:11:40] And the cost can be significant.

[1:11:42] Developers pay once to have the work

[1:11:44] done and again to have it reviewed. When

[1:11:47] the resulting changes are minor or don't

[1:11:49] meaningfully change the outcome, it

[1:11:51] raises a fair question. Is the added

[1:11:54] cost and delay justified by the value it

[1:11:56] provides? The motion answers that

[1:11:59] question the right way. It asks staff to

[1:12:01] track whether each peer review resulted

[1:12:03] in a material change to the proposed

[1:12:05] development. And that's the right test.

[1:12:08] If a review changes the outcome, it did

[1:12:10] its job. If it doesn't, council deserves

[1:12:12] to know that, too.

[1:12:14] We also support the expanded quarterly

[1:12:16] reporting on development activity and

[1:12:18] the service review of the planning

[1:12:20] process proposed for 2027. This work

[1:12:23] will bring transparency to a process

[1:12:24] that's difficult to measure from the

[1:12:26] outside. It will help council understand

[1:12:29] not just how long approvals are taking

[1:12:31] but why and whether the time and money

[1:12:33] spent throughout the process are

[1:12:34] delivering better outcomes. So from Bill

[1:12:37] Durban, we urge council to support this

[1:12:39] motion and I thank you for your time.

[1:12:42] Are there any questions?

[1:12:44] I see none. Thank you, Melissa.

[1:12:48] So, that concludes this evening's de

[1:12:50] delegations. Before we proceed with the

[1:12:53] remaining agenda items this evening, we

[1:12:55] will return to the unfinished business

[1:12:57] from the June 23rd council meeting

[1:12:59] regarding report 26-040

[1:13:03] PG, recommendation to approve an

[1:13:05] official plan amendment and zoning by

[1:13:07] amendment for 8 Scoffield Street.

[1:13:09] Council has heard an external

[1:13:11] presentation this evening from Richard

[1:13:13] Kelly Roots of GSP Group who provided

[1:13:15] supplementary information regarding

[1:13:17] follow-up discussions with adjacent

[1:13:19] property owners to 8 Scull Scoffield

[1:13:21] Street. You have also heard from the

[1:13:23] delegates again tonight regarding this

[1:13:25] matter. We will now put the motion on

[1:13:27] the floor to permit questions and

[1:13:30] comments and councelor Schwer. Oh, wait

[1:13:34] a minute. And I asked council to be

[1:13:36] brief with comments and questions to

[1:13:38] cons en ensure that we can get through

[1:13:40] all the business on tonight's agenda.

[1:13:42] Council Schwer, you have that motion.

[1:13:56] » No. Thank you, Mayor Leot. U moved by

[1:13:59] myself, seconded by councelor Kimson to

[1:14:02] the recommendation is to approve the

[1:14:04] proposed official plan amendment for 8

[1:14:07] Scoffield Street to redesate the lands

[1:14:10] from lowmedium density residential to

[1:14:13] highdensity residential and approve the

[1:14:16] proposed zoning bylaw amendment for 8

[1:14:18] Scullfield Street to reszone the

[1:14:20] property from institutional multiple

[1:14:23] residential N1 RM3 to residential R3

[1:14:27] with sight specific specific provisions

[1:14:29] to permit an eight-story building with

[1:14:31] 72 residential units and direct the city

[1:14:35] clerk to present the draft bylaws

[1:14:38] attached in appendix D and E to report

[1:14:42] 26-040-PG

[1:14:45] to council for enactment.

[1:14:48] >> Are there any questions?

[1:14:51] Any comments?

[1:14:53] Okay, we will go straight to the vote.

[1:14:57] Opening voting.

[1:15:04] » Closing voting

[1:15:06] that carries unanimously.

[1:15:14] » We will be going to the consent agenda,

[1:15:16] but the two finance reports on that

[1:15:18] >> I can see.

[1:15:19] >> Oh, sorry.

[1:15:21] >> Yep. Sorry, Madame Mayor. Through you. I

[1:15:23] just wanted to clarify that um we're

[1:15:24] pulling two items from the consent

[1:15:26] agenda listed as 11.6 and 11.7 and they

[1:15:30] will be forwarded to a council meeting

[1:15:32] expected to take place on September

[1:15:33] 15th, 2026.

[1:15:43] Are there any other items you'd wish to

[1:15:44] have pulled from the consent agenda

[1:15:46] tonight?

[1:15:48] I see none. So, councelor Hamilton, can

[1:15:50] you put the consent agenda on the floor?

[1:15:55] » Thank you, Mayor Lan through you. It's

[1:15:56] moved by myself and seconded by

[1:15:57] councelor Schwerry. Recommendation that

[1:16:00] all items listed under the heading of

[1:16:01] consent agenda for August 25th, 2026 be

[1:16:04] adopted as recommended. Item 11.1,

[1:16:07] council meeting workshop minutes,

[1:16:08] February 9th, 2026. 11.2, Planning

[1:16:12] Statutory Public Meeting Minutes, July

[1:16:14] 14th, 2026. 11.3 Council Meeting Minutes

[1:16:18] July 21st, 2026. 11.4 Council

[1:16:21] Information Package, August 7th, 2026.

[1:16:25] 11.5 Council Information Package, July

[1:16:28] 24th, 2026.

[1:16:30] 11.8 26-069-PG

[1:16:34] Remove development restriction 2011 and

[1:16:37] 217 Hesler Road holding removal

[1:16:39] application

[1:16:41] 11.9 26-071-PG.

[1:16:44] Enact heritage designation with property

[1:16:46] owners consent.

[1:16:49] 11.1026-024-C

[1:16:53] supplementary noise exemption approvals

[1:16:56] 11.1126-073-PG

[1:17:00] 20 Oldmill Road Heritage Permit

[1:17:02] application

[1:17:04] 11.12 26-075-PG

[1:17:08] create new lots on Sage Drive part

[1:17:10] control exemption application. and item

[1:17:13] 11.13 special council meeting workshop

[1:17:16] minutes August 13 2026.

[1:17:19] >> Okay, we will call for that vote.

[1:17:25] » Opening voting.

[1:17:30] » Closing voting

[1:17:34] that carries unanimously.

[1:17:37] >> We will now move into consideration of

[1:17:39] reports and this evening we have three

[1:17:40] reports before us. The first item is

[1:17:43] 26-072PG,

[1:17:45] fence variance application F126-

[1:17:49] 331 Salisbury Avenue. And uh our

[1:17:53] director of planning, Bren Neily, will

[1:17:55] introduce this item.

[1:17:57] Welcome, Bren.

[1:18:04] » Thank you, mayor and counselors. This

[1:18:06] report considers a fence variance

[1:18:08] application as noted for 331 Salisbury

[1:18:11] Avenue to permit a 2.4 meter high fence

[1:18:14] where a maximum height of 2.1 is

[1:18:16] permitted. Fence various variances are

[1:18:18] typically approved under delegated

[1:18:20] authority. However, applications are

[1:18:22] referred to council when objections are

[1:18:24] received through the circulation

[1:18:26] process. The requested increase is

[1:18:29] intended to improve privacy due to the

[1:18:30] property's higher elevation related to

[1:18:33] adjacent lots. And staff have reviewed

[1:18:35] the application and determined that the

[1:18:37] proposal is appropriate and compatible

[1:18:39] with the surrounding neighborhood and

[1:18:41] approval is recommended.

[1:18:49] » Councelor Roberts.

[1:18:52] Thank you, Mayor Jan, and through you

[1:18:53] and thank you, Bren, for your

[1:18:54] presentation. I have a couple questions,

[1:18:56] but I'll I'll just start with the one.

[1:18:57] So, you mentioned that the elevation was

[1:18:59] different. Um, one of the concerns from

[1:19:01] the neighboring property was that it

[1:19:02] didn't seem to be necessary. Could you

[1:19:04] speak a little bit more to that? Is this

[1:19:06] necessary to have this increased height

[1:19:09] of this fence here

[1:19:11] >> through you, mayor? Um, it was deemed

[1:19:13] warranted in that there is quite a

[1:19:16] significant elevation change among the

[1:19:18] property owners um in the surrounding

[1:19:20] vicinity.

[1:19:23] » Councelor Hamilton.

[1:19:25] Thank you, Mayor Lean through you.

[1:19:27] Thanks very much, Bren, for your

[1:19:28] presentation. I'm just curious why our

[1:19:30] fence height is about 30 cmters lower

[1:19:33] than Kitcher and Wateroo. Is there an

[1:19:35] historical reason why our fences aren't

[1:19:37] higher? See how the expression good

[1:19:38] fences make good neighbors? So, what's

[1:19:41] to do with the discrepancy?

[1:19:43] >> Through you, Madame Mayor, the the

[1:19:46] matter of uh the zoning and height

[1:19:48] provisions are a matter of local

[1:19:50] importance. I don't know the specific

[1:19:52] history here in Cambridge. Um, but it's

[1:19:55] certainly worth something taking a look

[1:19:57] at in terms of consistency with our

[1:19:59] surrounding area municipalities. And I

[1:20:02] will note that there will be a phase two

[1:20:04] of the updated zoning bylaw undertaken

[1:20:08] um in the not too distant future and a

[1:20:10] part of that will include consistency

[1:20:13] with other area municipalities.

[1:20:15] Okay.

[1:20:15] >> Thank you,

[1:20:16] >> Councelor Roberts.

[1:20:19] >> Thanks, Mayor Jan. through you. Um, one

[1:20:20] of the other concerns was the safety of

[1:20:23] the way that the fence has been built.

[1:20:25] Would you be able to speak to that? Is

[1:20:27] it going to be made safe? I guess

[1:20:29] there's nails poking out or something

[1:20:30] that might be unsafe there.

[1:20:32] >> Through you, Madame Mayor. As part of

[1:20:35] the recommendation, staff have included

[1:20:37] conditions requiring that any exposed

[1:20:40] nails be corrected for that safety

[1:20:42] provision. I'll also note there was

[1:20:44] comment regarding damage to private

[1:20:46] property or utility lines, but staff

[1:20:49] have not received any evidence to

[1:20:51] substantiate those concerns.

[1:20:53] >> Okay. Thank you,

[1:20:55] >> Councelor Cooper.

[1:20:57] >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. If you p see on

[1:20:59] page 194, you see the discrepancy

[1:21:01] between the fences. I'm thinking from a

[1:21:03] visual perspective here. You've basic,

[1:21:06] you know, you've got stepped fencing. If

[1:21:08] this were approved, um, would the

[1:21:10] neighbors that have a shorter fence

[1:21:14] buted up against it, would they be also

[1:21:16] permitted to raise their single fence up

[1:21:19] to the same height so it isn't stepped

[1:21:21] like that should they choose to?

[1:21:25] >> Through you, Madame Mayor. Um, every

[1:21:27] property owner is entitled to apply for

[1:21:30] a variance of the zoning provisions and

[1:21:33] certainly it is common that um,

[1:21:35] individual property owners have their

[1:21:38] distinctive preferred fence style. So

[1:21:40] inconsistency among surrounding property

[1:21:43] owners is fairly common in urban

[1:21:46] environments such as this.

[1:21:51] Okay, I see no more questions. Councelor

[1:21:53] Roberts, could you put the motion on the

[1:21:55] floor, please?

[1:21:59] Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved by

[1:22:00] myself, seconded by councelor Kimson.

[1:22:03] Recommendation to approve the proposed

[1:22:05] fence variance for 331 Salisbury Avenue

[1:22:08] to permit a fence height of 2.4 meters

[1:22:10] between the established building line

[1:22:12] and rear lot line of the property as

[1:22:15] shown in appendix A subject to the

[1:22:17] condition noted in this report.

[1:22:21] » Thank you. Are there any comments or

[1:22:23] further questions?

[1:22:25] Seeing none, we'll put the motion on the

[1:22:27] floor.

[1:22:28] >> Sorry, we'll go to the vote.

[1:22:32] >> Opening voting.

[1:22:37] » Closing voting.

[1:22:39] That carries unanimously.

[1:22:44] The next report for consideration

[1:22:46] tonight is 26-066

[1:22:48] PG Hesper Road Corridor Secondary Plan,

[1:22:51] OPA 102 recommendation.

[1:22:53] and our director of planning, Bren

[1:22:55] Neely, will also introduce this item.

[1:23:02] Thank you, mayor. This report presents

[1:23:04] the Hesper Road Corridor Secondary Plan,

[1:23:07] which is a transformative vision for one

[1:23:09] of Cambridge's most important urban

[1:23:11] corridors. Building on extensive public

[1:23:14] consultation and council's consideration

[1:23:16] most recently at the statutory public

[1:23:18] meeting held May 12th, 2026, the plan

[1:23:22] establishes a long-term framework to

[1:23:24] guide the growth, transit investment,

[1:23:26] housing, employment, parks, and public

[1:23:29] realm improvements. It charts a path for

[1:23:32] Hespler Road to evolve into a vibrant

[1:23:34] mixeduse transit supportive corridor

[1:23:36] where people can live, work, shop, and

[1:23:39] connect, supporting a more complete,

[1:23:41] sustainable, and prosperous Cambridge.

[1:23:44] As the plan largely reflects the

[1:23:46] presentation given on May 12th, there's

[1:23:48] no formal presentation to be presented

[1:23:50] by staff today. However, staff are here

[1:23:53] and happy to answer any questions that

[1:23:55] council may have regarding this plan.

[1:24:08] Okay. Uh, councelor Divine.

[1:24:12] >> Yes. Thank you through the chair. Uh, I

[1:24:15] wasn't here May 12th. I was I was

[1:24:17] fishing.

[1:24:18] Okay. Uh, well done document. But

[1:24:21] there's a supplementary document that's

[1:24:23] been handed out here that I don't I

[1:24:25] don't quite understand.

[1:24:27] Okay. Okay. It refers to um 112, 122,

[1:24:31] and 128 Pine Bush Road.

[1:24:34] Can you tell me what that's about?

[1:24:40] through uh through the mayor. Staff are

[1:24:43] aware that um a developer within that

[1:24:48] vicinity has um reached out and engaged

[1:24:51] on consideration of a motion to amend

[1:24:55] properties along Pine Bush Road there in

[1:24:57] that location.

[1:24:58] >> Okay. But Pine Bush Road is not

[1:25:00] considered part of this plan. Am I

[1:25:02] correct in saying that?

[1:25:04] through the mayor. There is a portion of

[1:25:06] Pine Bush Road that covers the um

[1:25:09] northeastern portion of the secondary

[1:25:12] plan area. Yes.

[1:25:13] >> Okay. But it wouldn't be on these three

[1:25:14] addresses. Is that correct? This is an

[1:25:16] addition

[1:25:18] >> through the mayor. Those lands are

[1:25:20] within the secondary plan. My

[1:25:22] understanding is that there's a desire

[1:25:24] to have council consider a different

[1:25:26] designation than the one that staff have

[1:25:28] recommended.

[1:25:31] >> Okay. I think I'm going to need an

[1:25:32] explanation on this from someone. Thank

[1:25:35] you for that because that's a word too.

[1:25:38] Thank Thank you.

[1:25:41] » Councelor Divine, you want the

[1:25:43] explanation now? We have the staff here.

[1:25:46] That should be the one

[1:25:53] » through the mayor. I understand that

[1:25:54] there may be a motion that council is

[1:25:56] considering and um that would be I think

[1:26:00] instructive to the discussion to provide

[1:26:03] that explanation.

[1:26:20] » Thank you to you, Madame Mayor. Um, what

[1:26:22] I might recommend is that we put the

[1:26:24] staff recommended motion on the floor

[1:26:26] [snorts] and then I understand that we

[1:26:27] have a potential amendment from

[1:26:29] councelor Shiry so we could then add

[1:26:30] that amendment to the floor and then

[1:26:32] that would be the appropriate time to

[1:26:33] have that discussion.

[1:26:37] » Councelor Roberts,

[1:26:40] >> thank you Mayor Jan um and through you

[1:26:42] and thank you Bin and all your staff for

[1:26:45] all your hard work on this. I know it's

[1:26:46] been a long time coming. Um I just have

[1:26:48] a question about sort of the rigidity or

[1:26:51] flexibility of this plan. So is this one

[1:26:54] of these sort of fluid documents that um

[1:26:57] you know we can have a look at current

[1:26:59] economic climate or changes in um you

[1:27:03] know land use needs. So, for example, if

[1:27:05] there's an area that's being used for

[1:27:07] industrial that maybe that changes and

[1:27:09] we can have a look at that later down

[1:27:10] the road depending on the, you know,

[1:27:12] where we're at because as we know things

[1:27:14] change rapidly um when it comes to

[1:27:17] political stuff. Um is that you know is

[1:27:20] that an opportunity that we will have

[1:27:21] down the road or once we pass this it's

[1:27:23] kind of set until I believe it's 201 I

[1:27:26] believe it goes still something like

[1:27:27] that. What how does this document work

[1:27:31] >> through the mayor? The the secondary

[1:27:34] plan is going to be a document of

[1:27:37] council. Should council approve the

[1:27:40] recommended secondary plan today, it

[1:27:43] continues to be a living document with

[1:27:46] council. If council feels there's a need

[1:27:48] to re-evaluate any aspect of the plan,

[1:27:52] staff would welcome a motion from

[1:27:54] council directing staff to do further

[1:27:57] work or reconsider what is proposed. So

[1:28:00] while this visions envisions a long-term

[1:28:04] um um setting for the Hesper road

[1:28:07] corridor is not locked in stone. It is

[1:28:10] open to amendment over time as council

[1:28:13] sees fit.

[1:28:14] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[1:28:17] Councelor Shwary. Uh thank you, Mayor.

[1:28:20] And actually, uh councelor

[1:28:23] uh Roberts just asked my question, uh

[1:28:26] that I wanted it to be public so people

[1:28:29] know that things can change. It's it's

[1:28:32] not set in stone. And um you know, we

[1:28:35] can change the drive-thrus

[1:28:38] uh specific use designations

[1:28:41] and maybe density changes uh to be able

[1:28:45] to listen to the market demand.

[1:28:48] >> Councelor Hamilton.

[1:28:52] >> Thank you, Mayor through you and thanks

[1:28:53] again, Bren, for your presentation. Um I

[1:28:56] know in part of the the aspiration for

[1:28:58] transportation down HPA road um stage 2

[1:29:01] ion light rail transit LRT is part of

[1:29:03] the plan and it forms a substantial

[1:29:05] component of transportation and I know

[1:29:07] that's out of the city's hands. Uh it's

[1:29:09] regional and they're moving on to the business case. What happens if that

[1:29:15] doesn't occur? How flexible is the

[1:29:17] planning for transportation and the plan

[1:29:19] if LRT doesn't end up going down HP road

[1:29:24] >> through the mayor um accepting that

[1:29:27] there's some uncertainty built around

[1:29:29] the ION I think it's critical that the

[1:29:31] city recognizes that regardless of the

[1:29:34] future or the timing of the ion HP road

[1:29:37] corridor is a major public

[1:29:39] transportation route and we really want

[1:29:43] to make sure that we're creating a

[1:29:45] development

[1:29:45] pattern that sure potentially um will

[1:29:49] support higher order transit down the

[1:29:51] road, but also today the development

[1:29:55] patterns that are supportive of Grand

[1:29:57] River Transit, supporting their

[1:29:59] ridership, helping them build

[1:30:01] justification to further make

[1:30:02] improvements of that important bus route

[1:30:05] that currently is traveling up and down

[1:30:07] Hespler Road Corridor.

[1:30:09] >> And one quick followup may thank you. So

[1:30:12] would I be correct in saying that the

[1:30:13] LRT would help to facilitate the goals

[1:30:15] of the plan in bringing those people the

[1:30:18] greater density to that central corridor

[1:30:22] >> through the mayor the the ion and

[1:30:25] transit oriented development focused on

[1:30:27] that certainly kind of puts um a higher

[1:30:31] level of interest in investment as a

[1:30:33] result of that infrastructure coming in.

[1:30:36] Regardless, we know that investment in

[1:30:39] transit oriented development is great

[1:30:42] for existing transit systems as they are

[1:30:45] in place today and becomes that sort of

[1:30:49] mutually beneficial system of improving

[1:30:51] ridership and in doing so improving

[1:30:55] service that's offered in doing so

[1:30:57] supporting a greater intensity of

[1:30:59] housing. It's all sort of

[1:31:01] self-fulfilling.

[1:31:03] >> Thank you. There are a lot of pieces to

[1:31:04] the puzzle. Just trying to see how they

[1:31:05] fit. Thank you. [snorts]

[1:31:08] >> Councelor Shwer, can you put the revised

[1:31:10] staff motion on the floor, please?

[1:31:34] Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Leget. Um

[1:31:38] moved by myself, seconded by councelor

[1:31:41] Ernshaw, uh to approve the official plan

[1:31:44] amendment 102 for the Hesler Road

[1:31:46] Corridor Secondary Plan attached to

[1:31:49] report 26-066-PG

[1:31:54] as appendix A and B with the following

[1:31:56] modifications to policy 21.54.1.5

[1:32:04] uh and five demonstrations may be

[1:32:06] required. ired when major developments

[1:32:09] such as commercial path sites exceeding

[1:32:12] 1,860

[1:32:13] square meters or mixeduse buildings

[1:32:16] including residential or freestanding

[1:32:19] residential development is proposed.

[1:32:22] Demonstration plans are not required for

[1:32:24] renovations, expansion, replacement or

[1:32:27] reconfiguration of existing buildings on

[1:32:30] site, including the mall building.

[1:32:33] Demonstration plans may be prepared for

[1:32:35] sub areas of the site and will generally

[1:32:38] display the following where applicable.

[1:32:41] A locations, uses and mass massing of

[1:32:44] buildings and development blocks. B

[1:32:48] location size and configuration of

[1:32:50] public spaces, parkland and open spaces.

[1:32:54] C. Location and layout of public and or

[1:32:57] private streets. D. build form

[1:33:00] transition to adjacent development and

[1:33:02] or e location and layout of parking

[1:33:05] areas

[1:33:08] and I have an amendment.

[1:33:10] >> Is this when I say it or

[1:33:12] >> Yes, if you could put the amendment on

[1:33:13] the floor and then we'll do the

[1:33:15] questions and comments and uh st if

[1:33:18] council can keep their that to the uh

[1:33:20] amendment please.

[1:33:23] Do I need a speaker?

[1:33:26] >> Okay. So, my amendment is that the um

[1:33:29] official plan amendment 102 and the

[1:33:32] Hespler Road Corridor secondary plan

[1:33:35] contain contained in appendix B to

[1:33:38] report 26-066-PG

[1:33:42] be modified prior to adoption as

[1:33:44] follows. that schedule B land use plan

[1:33:48] be amended to redesate the lands

[1:33:51] municipally known as 112

[1:33:55] and 128 Pine Bush Road together with

[1:33:57] block 7 to midrise residential

[1:34:01] consistent with the proposed midrise

[1:34:03] residential designation of adjacent

[1:34:06] block 8 and that a sightsp specific

[1:34:09] policy be added to section 21

[1:34:13] uh 5.1

[1:34:15] 154

[1:34:17] sight specific policies for 1122

[1:34:21] and 128 Pine Bush Road block 7 and block

[1:34:24] 8 to provide that notwithstanding table

[1:34:28] 21-1 and section 21

[1:34:32] 5.6.3 6.3. Residential development on

[1:34:35] these lands shall be subject to a

[1:34:37] minimum density of 40 units per hectare

[1:34:40] rather than 60 units per hectare. And

[1:34:43] that the final density, height, and

[1:34:45] build form of development on these lands

[1:34:48] be determined through the applicable

[1:34:51] development approval process having

[1:34:53] regard to sight specific conditions,

[1:34:56] compatibility, servicing,

[1:34:58] transportation, infrastructure, urban

[1:35:01] design, public realm, and other

[1:35:03] applicable requirements. and that

[1:35:06] schedule B and any other applicable

[1:35:08] schedules, figures, tables, and policies

[1:35:11] be modified accordingly.

[1:35:15] Do you have a secondary

[1:35:18] councelor Meta?

[1:35:21] Are there

[1:35:31] uh Bren, do you want to speak to this

[1:35:33] before we go to questions?

[1:35:37] uh through the mayor through you mayor.

[1:35:40] The uh motion that's on the floor now

[1:35:43] relates to a series of properties with

[1:35:46] mixed ownership. We know that some of

[1:35:49] the parcels are presently owned by the

[1:35:52] same developer who has already developed

[1:35:55] the residential properties immediately

[1:35:56] to the north of the properties that

[1:35:59] councelor Shweri has referred to. We

[1:36:03] also know that within those blocks there

[1:36:06] are two parcels that are currently owned

[1:36:09] by other private land owners and those

[1:36:11] properties are being operated as um um

[1:36:16] commercial other private operations that

[1:36:19] are not residentialbased.

[1:36:21] And so, uh, just to be aware that the

[1:36:24] motion that councelor Shere has put on

[1:36:26] the floor will affect the land use

[1:36:29] opportunities both of the residential

[1:36:32] developer who owns those lands as well

[1:36:34] as those other um, commercial property

[1:36:38] owner operators.

[1:36:42] » Councelor Divine.

[1:36:43] >> Yes. Thank you through the chair. these

[1:36:45] three properties in question.

[1:36:50] Can we withdraw these from the motion

[1:36:54] till we actually figure out what they

[1:36:55] are?

[1:36:57] Okay. All they are to me all they are is

[1:36:59] addresses in ward two. Okay. Um I don't

[1:37:04] know if one of these is the car club or

[1:37:06] what it is. Um, if somebody could give

[1:37:09] me some clarity on what 112, 122, and

[1:37:13] 128 are,

[1:37:15] but I don't. All they are is numbers

[1:37:19] through the mayor. The properties that

[1:37:21] are owned by other private owners who

[1:37:23] are not the residential development um,

[1:37:27] owner of the surrounding properties,

[1:37:29] those are 122 and 128 Pine Bush. So,

[1:37:33] just to restate that 122 and 128 Pine

[1:37:37] Bush are properties owned not by

[1:37:40] residential development.

[1:37:45] » They're business.

[1:37:46] >> So, councelor Divine, you're still

[1:37:48] wanting to know what those

[1:37:49] >> Yes, I'd like to know there.

[1:37:50] >> So, is there anybody in the room who can

[1:37:52] tell us what those properties are,

[1:37:54] please?

[1:37:54] >> Through you, Mayor. Uh Melissa Castellan

[1:37:57] Alden can answer that question.

[1:37:59] >> Thank you.

[1:38:01] >> Good evening. through you, Madame Mayor.

[1:38:03] The um letter from Brandt Haven Homes um

[1:38:07] their consultant, Selinka Priamo, is

[1:38:09] included in the council package and has

[1:38:10] a um

[1:38:13] map showing the subject lands. 128 um

[1:38:16] Pine Bush is the car club.

[1:38:19] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[1:38:21] >> And 122 is immediately to the west.

[1:38:26] >> I would suggest we take these out until

[1:38:28] we get some clarification on it.

[1:38:30] That's what I would suggest.

[1:38:34] » Um, so to be clear, councelor Divine,

[1:38:36] are you proposing an amendment to the

[1:38:37] amendment?

[1:38:38] >> Yes.

[1:38:39] >> Okay.

[1:38:40] >> Second,

[1:38:42] >> we can always put this in later.

[1:38:43] >> Do you have a seconder?

[1:38:46] >> Council specificity for how he

[1:38:51] speaks.

[1:38:52] >> We're going to have to get the wording

[1:38:54] on your amendment. Councelor Divine. Are

[1:38:56] you prepared to do that now or?

[1:38:58] >> Sure. Okay. Do you want to take two

[1:39:00] minutes?

[1:39:01] >> Two minutes and we'll Yeah. Thank you.

[1:41:15] I don't have the wording yet.

[1:41:18] >> Oh, you don't have the wording yet?

[1:41:20] Okay. Forget I just did that.

[1:46:56] Okay. So, that was all very confusing,

[1:46:59] but we have come up with a solution and

[1:47:00] the clerk, deputy clerk will explain

[1:47:04] what's going to happen.

[1:47:06] >> Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you.

[1:47:08] Uh so after conferring with staff and

[1:47:10] councelor Divine um he's not going to

[1:47:12] introduce a secondary amendment to

[1:47:14] councelor Shuy's amendment. He's just

[1:47:15] going to speak now um to [snorts] his

[1:47:18] opinion on the amendment which will

[1:47:19] accomplish what he was trying to

[1:47:20] accomplish.

[1:47:26] » Councelor Schwear, you want to speak to

[1:47:27] your amendment? Not councelor Divine's

[1:47:30] amendment but your own

[1:47:33] because the councelor Divine has

[1:47:35] withdrawn his amendment.

[1:47:38] Yes. I just want to explain my

[1:47:40] amendment.

[1:47:42] >> Okay. Could we go to qu the rest of the

[1:47:44] questions first?

[1:47:45] >> Oh, of course. Councelor uh councelor

[1:47:47] Ameda, you have a question to do with

[1:47:50] the

[1:47:50] >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Jan. I

[1:47:52] don't. I just want to quickly say I have

[1:47:54] an amendment, but it's an entirely new

[1:47:55] amendment. I'm just letting you know.

[1:48:00] » Okay. This is the problem when when

[1:48:02] counselors bring amendments at the last

[1:48:04] minute or the last day. All of this

[1:48:06] could have been avoided if this had been

[1:48:08] done days ago. This is why staff is

[1:48:11] constantly saying, "Please come to us

[1:48:14] when you have amendments."

[1:48:16] So, now we've got a big shimazle on the

[1:48:19] floor. Councelor Divine.

[1:48:24] » Thank you. Is the mic on?

[1:48:26] >> Mhm.

[1:48:27] >> Okay.

[1:48:28] What I'm asking for is

[1:48:32] of councel

[1:48:34] to turn down this amendment. That's what

[1:48:37] I'm asking to turn down the amendment.

[1:48:40] This is in word two. All right. And

[1:48:44] after a proper investigation,

[1:48:47] okay, and I I will check into it. If I

[1:48:49] have to bring this back

[1:48:52] in this form, I will do that. I will do

[1:48:55] that. Ask I'm asking

[1:48:59] council

[1:49:01] to turn this down because it's not

[1:49:04] appropriate at this time. This word too

[1:49:08] um a couple couple of these buildings I

[1:49:10] know. So I'm asking council to turn it

[1:49:13] down. Thank you.

[1:49:16] >> Councelor Hamilton speaking to the

[1:49:17] amendment.

[1:49:18] >> Uh yes, mayor. They get through. I have

[1:49:20] a question about the amendment. It might

[1:49:22] be an answer from staff, but what

[1:49:24] exactly would be the difference between

[1:49:25] density of 40 units per hectare and 60

[1:49:28] units per hectare that the amendment is

[1:49:30] asking for? And would that conflict

[1:49:33] significantly with the plan?

[1:49:35] >> Through the mayor to councelor Hamilton,

[1:49:37] the um proposed densities in the

[1:49:41] secondary plan, our recommended density

[1:49:42] of 60 helps us to achieve um the

[1:49:46] required density requirements for a

[1:49:48] major transit station area. They're also

[1:49:50] representative of the stacked townhouse.

[1:49:53] The houses form that are on the

[1:49:56] residential portion of the that property

[1:49:58] currently. So, it's really just an

[1:50:01] extension of the existing development.

[1:50:03] If you go down to 40 um units per

[1:50:06] hectare, you're at a low density um

[1:50:08] development form in a twostory um

[1:50:11] townhouse. Um, and what the motion is

[1:50:15] asking for is to allow for twostory town

[1:50:18] houses to front onto Pine Bush.

[1:50:20] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:50:23] >> I have a question. I have a question.

[1:50:26] [clears throat]

[1:50:27] So, why does it not say a maximum of 40?

[1:50:30] Why does it say a minimum? Because a

[1:50:31] minimum would still allow for 60.

[1:50:37] » The plan is for a minimum density of of

[1:50:40] 60. So we want to see that um achieved.

[1:50:46] >> So there's no maximum.

[1:50:47] >> There's no maximum.

[1:50:52] » Thank you.

[1:50:54] Councelor Schwear, you wanted to speak

[1:50:56] to your amendment.

[1:51:00] Thank you, Mayor. Um and this particular

[1:51:04] um development is ready to go. But they

[1:51:09] don't build 60 units, they do 40 units.

[1:51:13] And for them to continue and and be

[1:51:16] ready to build, they would need that

[1:51:18] change. And that just also speaks to to

[1:51:21] the market. Um a lot of developers are

[1:51:24] now trying to develop that supports the

[1:51:28] market today. And that to me is

[1:51:30] important. And in regards to this whole

[1:51:34] lot like 2 122 and 28, those are little

[1:51:37] lots and the developer has spoken to the

[1:51:40] other owners and they feel that they're

[1:51:43] supported because you can't build um the

[1:51:46] two lots separately are too small to be

[1:51:48] developed. So it only makes sense to put

[1:51:51] them together because they are planning

[1:51:53] to buy to buy it all. So that was the

[1:51:56] purpose of this motion is to because

[1:51:59] they're ready to go and if we don't it's

[1:52:01] going to delay development even more and

[1:52:04] we're all about trying to build more

[1:52:06] houses and if we say no then this will

[1:52:09] delay this development.

[1:52:13] >> So councelor Schwary if the other

[1:52:17] property owners were not in opposition

[1:52:19] to this motion or amendment why are they

[1:52:23] not here? Why have we not heard from

[1:52:25] them saying they want to be part of this

[1:52:28] development? Because we we only have you

[1:52:32] saying that that the other developer

[1:52:37] has spoken to you and they've said that

[1:52:39] they have spoken to the other people,

[1:52:42] the other property owners saying they

[1:52:44] are in agreement, but we have no proof.

[1:52:48] >> So I I understand what you're saying. If

[1:52:51] I can respond to you, these other

[1:52:54] properties cannot be developed. Um like

[1:52:57] if we just approve the 112, the other

[1:53:01] two are too small even for development.

[1:53:03] So if we want to develop, they they

[1:53:06] would need that whole area. So that was

[1:53:08] the purpose of my amendment.

[1:53:14] » Okay. So I go back. So we don't have any

[1:53:17] proof that any of those conversations

[1:53:19] have happened. That's just my concern.

[1:53:21] We're going by what Brand Haven is

[1:53:24] saying that they've had the

[1:53:25] conversations and they intend on buying

[1:53:27] those properties from the other property

[1:53:29] owners and we're supposed to base our

[1:53:30] decisions on that conversation.

[1:53:33] Councelor Meta.

[1:53:35] >> Well, um, thank you very much, Mayor

[1:53:37] Jan. And for me, it's kind of a struggle

[1:53:39] and I'll explain why. I see what we're

[1:53:42] trying to achieve with the high density,

[1:53:44] but also I personally want a mix of

[1:53:46] housing and I hear from residents

[1:53:48] there's not enough of the kind of

[1:53:49] housing that they want. So I'm wondering

[1:53:52] if this might be an opportunity for some

[1:53:54] family size housing because on Husper

[1:53:56] Road itself, I don't think we're going

[1:53:58] to get it. So that's just my two cents.

[1:54:03] >> Cassery.

[1:54:05] >> Um thank you, Mayor. I just want to make

[1:54:07] another comment which um I have talked

[1:54:09] to staff with. This is my concern with

[1:54:12] this Hler corridor secondary plan. It's

[1:54:15] too prescriptive and it doesn't support

[1:54:19] I think market demand and putting in

[1:54:22] specific rules in place will detract

[1:54:24] some developers and businesses. So we

[1:54:28] have to be um we have I I feel that we

[1:54:31] have to allow um to be more uh flexible

[1:54:36] in in the in the densities and with the

[1:54:40] stuff right now it's too prescriptive

[1:54:42] it's not flexible and I know the the

[1:54:45] plan is saying that we can pass

[1:54:47] amendments in the future but I feel this

[1:54:50] still should still it still might

[1:54:52] detract people and I feel I still feel

[1:54:55] that we should make the uh densities

[1:54:58] more um more flexible than they are now.

[1:55:04] >> So, I have a question of staff here. I'm

[1:55:06] not opposed to to what you're talking

[1:55:08] about um councelor Sher. I I actually

[1:55:11] think it's pretty good thought process.

[1:55:13] Um but I want I have a question from

[1:55:16] staff. So if we pass it, if we vote down

[1:55:18] the amendment and pass the secondary

[1:55:21] plan without that,

[1:55:25] we can bring back that parcel of land

[1:55:29] and those amend that the amendments that

[1:55:32] councelor Shery is talking about bring

[1:55:33] that forward at next coun like

[1:55:37] next term

[1:55:40] which will still be just as quick

[1:55:44] » to you madame mayor. um the appropriate

[1:55:47] avenue would be through a sightsp

[1:55:48] specific development application from

[1:55:50] the land owner and they would require a

[1:55:52] zoning amendment regardless. So um that

[1:55:56] would be the appropriate process. It it

[1:55:58] seems like they're trying to do a sight

[1:55:59] specific development through a secondary

[1:56:01] plan.

[1:56:03] >> Okay. So the right process in my mind

[1:56:05] Okay. Thank you. It would be to vote

[1:56:07] down the amendment and have them go

[1:56:08] through the process that would assure

[1:56:10] that this is all done properly. That's

[1:56:12] just my my my um thinking on this.

[1:56:16] Council, did you want to speak again?

[1:56:18] >> Yeah, ju just one last comment. If we do

[1:56:20] that um if we don't uh reduce the the minimum this this development is

[1:56:28] ready to go like tomorrow, they're

[1:56:30] ready. And if we do and we wait till our

[1:56:32] next council, that's a huge delay for planning. And then we talk about

[1:56:37] it's going to add more costs and um so

[1:56:40] I'm just saying we need to be more

[1:56:42] flexible with the density.

[1:56:44] >> Well, I'm wondering if this would be

[1:56:46] able to come back on the 15th

[1:56:48] potentially. Could you speak to this?

[1:56:51] >> Yeah, that would be great.

[1:56:52] >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh for

[1:56:54] council's awareness, the secondary plan

[1:56:57] will bring into effect a policy regime.

[1:57:00] So that will alleviate potentially

[1:57:04] should should the motion be passed by

[1:57:07] council that will alleviate the need for

[1:57:10] the applicant to undertake an official

[1:57:12] plan amendment. However, there is still

[1:57:15] the underlying zoning in place. So

[1:57:17] regardless, there is still a planning

[1:57:19] act application process where these um

[1:57:23] respective parcels of land will steing

[1:57:27] bylaw amendment process in order to

[1:57:30] establish the zoning in order to proceed

[1:57:33] with the next phase of development.

[1:57:36] >> Councelor Roberts.

[1:57:39] >> Thank you, Mayor Jan and through I'm

[1:57:41] sorry. I think I'm just confused. Um cuz

[1:57:43] if the if the development is ready to

[1:57:45] go, like shovels in the ground, but they

[1:57:47] don't own the other two properties. I'm

[1:57:48] just confused how that's possible. Like

[1:57:51] I'm happy to support if there's a

[1:57:52] development that's like, "Yeah, let's

[1:57:54] build tomorrow." But how are they ready

[1:57:56] to go if they don't own the properties?

[1:57:58] Do they need those other little pieces

[1:57:59] in order to build this out or can we

[1:58:02] just approve the reduced density on the

[1:58:04] piece they do own if it is like they're

[1:58:06] going to build tomorrow and leave those

[1:58:08] other two alone? I'm just a little

[1:58:10] confused.

[1:58:13] through you. Madame Mayor, it is

[1:58:15] possible for development to proceed

[1:58:17] under multiple land ownership. In that

[1:58:19] case, the application just needs to

[1:58:21] include support of documentation that

[1:58:23] all land owners are um in agreement with

[1:58:26] the applications.

[1:58:31] » Councelor Divine,

[1:58:34] >> we're beating this up pretty good. Um

[1:58:36] can you just read the motion back so I

[1:58:38] we all understand where we're at?

[1:58:41] Kria amendment

[1:58:43] >> the amendment can read it back.

[1:58:47] >> Uh so we'll display it for you as well.

[1:58:49] >> Thank you.

[1:58:56] » Um so the amendment on the floor is that

[1:58:59] official plan amendment number 102 and

[1:59:01] the Hesville Road corridor secondary

[1:59:02] plan contained in appendix B to report

[1:59:04] 26-066-PG

[1:59:07] be modified prior to adoption as

[1:59:08] follows. uh that schedule B land use

[1:59:11] plan be amended to redesate the lands

[1:59:12] municipally known as 112, 122, and 128

[1:59:15] Pine Bush Road together with block 7 to

[1:59:17] mid-rise residential consistent with the

[1:59:20] proposed mid-rise residential

[1:59:21] designation of adjacent block 8. and

[1:59:23] that a sight specific policy be added to

[1:59:25] section 21.5.14

[1:59:28] sight specific policies for 1122 and 128

[1:59:31] Pine Bush Road block 7 and block 8 to

[1:59:34] provide that notwithstanding table 21-1

[1:59:37] and section 21-5.6.3 6.3 residential

[1:59:41] development on these lands shall be

[1:59:42] subject to a minimum density of 40 units

[1:59:44] per hectare rather than 60 units per

[1:59:46] hectare and that the final density

[1:59:48] height and built form of development on

[1:59:50] these lands be determined through the

[1:59:51] applicable development approval process

[1:59:53] having regard to sight specific

[1:59:54] conditions compatibility servicing

[1:59:56] transportation infrastructure urban

[1:59:59] design public realm and other applicable

[2:00:01] requirements and that schedule B and any

[2:00:03] other applicable schedule figures tables

[2:00:05] and policies be modified accordingly

[2:00:08] >> thank you and I'm asking and I'm asking

[2:00:10] council to turn that down so we get

[2:00:11] clarification on it down the road and I

[2:00:14] think that's very important. Thank you

[2:00:16] >> councelor Cooper.

[2:00:18] >> Yes, thank you. Yeah, we really are

[2:00:19] beating this one up here. Um what's I

[2:00:21] think what councelor Sh is trying to do

[2:00:23] here. I mean there may be some uh

[2:00:24] validity to this and what what's trying

[2:00:27] to be done here and if we you know we're

[2:00:29] trying to believe that there's someone

[2:00:30] here literally with the hard hat on and

[2:00:31] boots ready to go. Um I I do have a

[2:00:34] little bit of an issue with the fact

[2:00:35] that if this is so they're so eager, so

[2:00:38] ready to go, then there's nobody here.

[2:00:39] Um so I'd be more than happy if we could

[2:00:42] if we're able to bring this up soon,

[2:00:46] very soon. And hopefully have some

[2:00:48] people standing here that could back

[2:00:50] this up. If you can, if there's people

[2:00:52] involved in this that can back this up,

[2:00:55] then then let's go. But right now, we're

[2:00:57] kind of everything's being thrown at us

[2:00:59] without any kind of hard evidence for us

[2:01:01] to be able to back this up and say,

[2:01:03] "Let's do this." But if we can back it

[2:01:05] up, hey, let's go. But let's uh let's

[2:01:07] bring this back soon.

[2:01:10] >> But not today. But not today.

[2:01:20] This is really problematic because this

[2:01:22] is already, as the city manager is

[2:01:24] saying to me, it's already gone through

[2:01:26] extensive public engagement

[2:01:29] and we've got amendments on the floor

[2:01:31] last minute that we are all struggling

[2:01:33] with. First off, we don't even

[2:01:35] understand it now that we're starting to

[2:01:36] understand it. We're still struggling

[2:01:38] with that decision-making process.

[2:01:43] to Hardy to make a couple comments.

[2:01:45] >> Hardy, can you make a couple of comments

[2:01:47] on this, please?

[2:01:50] » Thank you, Mayor Leot through through

[2:01:52] you to the rest of council. I think it's um well known that Hesper Road is

[2:01:59] really a canvas ripe for redevelopment.

[2:02:03] When you go down Hesper Road, it's a

[2:02:06] large, very wide almost highway and all

[2:02:10] you see is parking lots and you see very

[2:02:14] um

[2:02:16] cars. You see a field of parking lots

[2:02:20] and you see many one and twostory

[2:02:22] buildings set very far back.

[2:02:26] Oftentimes it's referred to as one of

[2:02:28] the worst planned road networks in

[2:02:32] southwestern Ontario.

[2:02:35] What we have done here tonight and

[2:02:36] presented to council, as Mayor Liot

[2:02:39] indicated, has been years of public

[2:02:41] engagement. It's been feedback from this

[2:02:45] council and the previous council. It's

[2:02:47] been feedback from thousands of our

[2:02:50] residents around what can Hester Road

[2:02:54] look like over the next 10 years, 20,

[2:02:57] 30, and up to 50 years.

[2:03:00] And what we've presented here tonight is

[2:03:03] a is really a community that's based on

[2:03:07] some public spaces,

[2:03:10] some dense buildings, some tall

[2:03:13] buildings up to 25 stories. We have

[2:03:16] concerns when we we hear about 25-story

[2:03:19] buildings going in neighborhoods. Esper

[2:03:22] Road is prime and ripe to welcome this

[2:03:26] kind of development and this kind of

[2:03:28] investment into our community. We're

[2:03:31] talking about policies and we're asking

[2:03:35] council to help us shape the policies of

[2:03:38] how this community is going to grow over

[2:03:41] the decades to come. It's a very

[2:03:43] important decision, but it's one that we

[2:03:46] I think are very prepared for. We

[2:03:49] provided information to council. We've

[2:03:51] been providing information for council

[2:03:53] over the last number of years. We came

[2:03:56] this spring and presented the draft

[2:03:58] proposal. We've done additional

[2:04:01] modifications based on a few additional

[2:04:04] comments and we're very pleased with the

[2:04:07] direction and vision that council has

[2:04:09] told us to go forth and set policies for

[2:04:12] the growth of our community.

[2:04:17] If there is a property that you feel

[2:04:20] might not quite meet that vision, there

[2:04:23] are different mechanisms to address.

[2:04:26] But what council is asking you to do

[2:04:28] tonight is to approve the vision for

[2:04:31] this community so that investors,

[2:04:34] builders,

[2:04:35] property owners know how we're going to

[2:04:39] grow and where we're going to grow.

[2:04:42] Thank you,

[2:04:45] >> Councelor Schwar.

[2:04:48] >> Thank you, Mayor Leot. Um just one

[2:04:51] question but before I do uh these

[2:04:54] developers were

[2:04:56] they told me that they were told by

[2:04:59] staff that you know we could do an

[2:05:02] amendment to this to our to this plan

[2:05:06] which is why I brought it. Um I wouldn't

[2:05:08] have known otherwise. So they were

[2:05:11] directed and that's what what I did. But

[2:05:13] my question is can you were talking

[2:05:15] about a September 13 meeting. Are we

[2:05:19] able to pause this till then so I can

[2:05:22] get you better information to to support

[2:05:25] this? And then and and like had uh Bin

[2:05:29] had said um Miss Neely um Miss Neie that

[2:05:34] even um

[2:05:36] that this is a fluid document and you

[2:05:39] know amendments or changes are welcome

[2:05:42] um from how I'm understanding this. So,

[2:05:45] I'm just wondering, can we wait on until

[2:05:48] September 13 and and bring it back?

[2:05:51] Because if we wait too long, um this

[2:05:53] will affect this development.

[2:05:56] >> So, it's September 15th. We have a

[2:05:58] planning and development meeting and

[2:05:59] we're considering well, we have to bring

[2:06:01] something else back to council anyway,

[2:06:03] but we're we can't guarantee that that

[2:06:05] could be done by the September 15th. I

[2:06:08] personally am not willing to stop the

[2:06:11] Hebler secondary plan from going

[2:06:13] forward. We need to vote on that. Get

[2:06:15] that done currently. Hardy, did you want

[2:06:18] to speak on councelor Schwar's question,

[2:06:21] please?

[2:06:24] >> Thank you. Staff are looking for a

[2:06:26] decision from council this evening. The

[2:06:28] work that we've done on our secondary

[2:06:31] plan for Hesler Road currently is funded

[2:06:34] through our half. half is the um housing

[2:06:39] accelerator fund money sponsored from

[2:06:42] the federal government. If we don't have

[2:06:44] a decision by council this evening, we

[2:06:46] may be in jeopardy of losing that

[2:06:48] funding for this project which would

[2:06:50] then be borne by our taxpayers. So, I

[2:06:53] just wanted to ensure that council was aware of that. Thank you.

[2:06:58] >> And you had said that there is another

[2:07:00] way of this being brought forward. I

[2:07:01] think it was you or or Miss Neely that

[2:07:03] there's another way of bringing this

[2:07:05] forward for this piece of property the

[2:07:07] future. Okay.

[2:07:12] » Mayor through you madame mayor. There

[2:07:13] are really

[2:07:15] two options. Should council not make

[2:07:18] this um revision today. The there are

[2:07:22] two options that this specific site

[2:07:25] could move forward. The normal course of

[2:07:28] action is that the developer would make

[2:07:32] an application for an official plan

[2:07:34] amendment. I remind council that they

[2:07:37] are going to need to make an application

[2:07:39] for a zoning bylaw amendment regardless.

[2:07:42] So, um those planning applications could

[2:07:45] come forward through the development

[2:07:47] application process. Alternatively, um

[2:07:51] should council desire, it's council's,

[2:07:54] um authority to direct staff to go back

[2:07:57] and have a look at this parcel, and that

[2:07:59] would not be a development application.

[2:08:01] That would be a city initiated amendment

[2:08:04] to the policy.

[2:08:07] >> Councelor Kimson.

[2:08:12] » So, this is just speaking to the

[2:08:13] amendment.

[2:08:15] >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Sorry, I

[2:08:18] tried to turn on my mic and turn it off.

[2:08:20] Anyhow, um thank you. Um I guess I'm

[2:08:23] just following along what you had

[2:08:25] mentioned and what councelor Cooper had

[2:08:26] mentioned about whether or not there was

[2:08:28] the opportunity to revisit this on

[2:08:31] September the 15th, recognizing we do

[2:08:34] realize it's in the report right here

[2:08:36] that we need to have this approved by

[2:08:38] October 31st. And obviously we're

[2:08:42] running out of time. So, I'm not sure if

[2:08:45] that if that's something that

[2:08:48] I'm unclear as to whether or not we we

[2:08:51] can potentially do that or if we can't

[2:08:54] do that.

[2:08:55] >> So, I believe that's just for the

[2:08:57] Hespler Road secondary plan that we need

[2:09:00] to get that part done. Correct. Yes.

[2:09:02] It's just for that, not for the

[2:09:04] amendment.

[2:09:07] » May I follow up?

[2:09:09] >> Mr. Bronberg will follow your followup.

[2:09:17] Go ahead.

[2:09:18] >> Oh, sorry. Thank you. Um, can we have

[2:09:20] just a quick recess for something?

[2:09:25] » How about we have Mr. Brownberg respond

[2:09:28] to your original to see if I'm correct

[2:09:30] in what I just said.

[2:09:32] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:09:35] >> Thank you. So it's really important to

[2:09:37] note that the secondary plan will also

[2:09:40] form the basis of our official plan work

[2:09:42] which is currently scheduled to start at

[2:09:44] the end of this year. That work um will

[2:09:48] also look at policies and asking council

[2:09:51] to adopt pal policies for how the entire

[2:09:55] city of Cambridge will grow. There is an

[2:09:58] opportunity there to revisit some of the

[2:10:01] um or this specific property through

[2:10:04] that process. In the meantime, if that

[2:10:06] doesn't work for a particular property

[2:10:08] owner, they still have, as Miss Neie

[2:10:11] indicated, they still have the mechanism

[2:10:13] to go through a a sightspecific

[2:10:16] revision, a sightspecific what we call

[2:10:19] an official plan amendment or um in this

[2:10:22] case that would also be required to

[2:10:24] still go through the zoning bylaw

[2:10:26] amendment. Remember, a secondary plan

[2:10:29] and an official plan are only the

[2:10:32] policies of how council envisions this

[2:10:36] community to grow. The zoning bylaw is

[2:10:39] what actually provides the rules. And so

[2:10:41] the rules don't align currently if

[2:10:44] council approves this official plan and

[2:10:47] the policies with the policies. So, what

[2:10:52] Miss Neie was trying to explain is even

[2:10:55] if council were to approve this policy

[2:10:58] tonight for a specific property, they

[2:11:02] still have to go through a planning

[2:11:04] process.

[2:11:05] Thank you.

[2:11:08] >> Okay, we're going to go straight to the

[2:11:09] vote on the amendment rather than take a

[2:11:11] recess here. We've been going on for way

[2:11:13] too long and [clears throat] it becomes

[2:11:15] non-transparent to the public. I have

[2:11:17] I'm I'm very concerned that the public

[2:11:19] is wondering what we're doing when we

[2:11:21] take these recesses and I don't think

[2:11:22] it's fair. So, um the amendment is on

[2:11:26] the floor and we will do that vote.

[2:11:29] >> Opening voting.

[2:11:35] » Closing voting

[2:11:38] that is defeated by uh 7 to2 vote.

[2:11:45] And now the original main motion is back

[2:11:47] on the floor, madam.

[2:11:48] >> Okay. So, the original motion is on the

[2:11:51] floor now. We will go to that vote.

[2:11:54] >> The original motion.

[2:11:56] >> Yes.

[2:11:57] >> Oh, you had an amendment to the original

[2:11:59] motion?

[2:12:01] >> Okay. Go ahead.

[2:12:05] » Okay. So, I do have an amendment that is

[2:12:07] moved by myself.

[2:12:08] >> Can I ask you a question first? Has

[2:12:10] staff seen this at all?

[2:12:11] >> They have. Yes. I've emailed it and it's

[2:12:13] right here. Um, I've moved it's moved by

[2:12:16] myself, seconded by councelor Schwary.

[2:12:19] Whereas Northview Heights Lookout Park

[2:12:21] provides a valued public vantage point

[2:12:24] and visual connection to the surrounding

[2:12:26] landscape and city skyline and future

[2:12:29] high-rise and midrise developments

[2:12:31] within the Hesper Road and Canamera

[2:12:33] Parkway major transit station area MTSA

[2:12:37] have the potential to impact sight lines

[2:12:40] and public view corridors from this

[2:12:42] public vantage point. Now therefore, be

[2:12:45] it resolved that the draft Hasper Road

[2:12:48] corridor secondary plan be amended by

[2:12:51] adding the following provision. one

[2:12:53] sight line and view protection from

[2:12:55] Northview Heights Lookout Park that all

[2:12:58] future development applications

[2:13:00] including zoning bylaw amendments and

[2:13:02] site plan approvals located within the

[2:13:05] Hesper Road and Canamera Parkway major

[2:13:08] transit station area MTSA be strongly

[2:13:12] encouraged to include a visual impact in

[2:13:15] sight line assessment evaluating the

[2:13:17] proposed building height massing and

[2:13:20] placement relative to established public

[2:13:22] vehicle corridors from Northview Heights

[2:13:25] Lookout Park and that the development

[2:13:27] design be strongly encouraged to

[2:13:29] incorporate consideration of these

[2:13:31] public views utilizing architectural

[2:13:34] stepping strategic tower orientation and

[2:13:37] appropriate setbacks to preserve visual

[2:13:40] permeability and maintain the scenic

[2:13:43] integrity of the lookout experience

[2:13:45] where feasible. And I would like to

[2:13:47] speak to this.

[2:13:50] Can I ask staff to put that back up on

[2:13:52] the floor and go back to the beginning

[2:13:53] part of it, please? So I can absorb that

[2:13:56] again.

[2:14:08] [snorts]

[2:14:15] Okay. Normally we go to questions. Uh,

[2:14:18] so I'm going to go to questions that

[2:14:21] counselors may have for staff at this

[2:14:23] point or of counselor and then we will

[2:14:26] go to comments and I'm going to ask

[2:14:28] staff to comment on this and and uh the

[2:14:31] impact that this may have.

[2:14:34] Any questions?

[2:14:36] I see none. So go ahead councelor Amanda

[2:14:39] with your comment.

[2:14:42] The reason I'm bringing this forward and

[2:14:44] I do realize there were a lot of

[2:14:46] opportunities throughout the process to

[2:14:48] have this discussion and I have already

[2:14:51] mentioned this as part of my feedback to

[2:14:53] date. Um the reason I'm bringing this

[2:14:55] forward is to get this early in the

[2:14:57] process. I believe that the secondary

[2:15:00] plan kind of sets the blueprint for the

[2:15:02] future and I know we're going to be

[2:15:04] looking at the official plan and the

[2:15:06] zoning bylaw. I totally get all that,

[2:15:08] but I I want to start on this right away

[2:15:11] because this is a very important view in

[2:15:14] our city. Not just to the North View

[2:15:16] Heights neighborhood, but to the

[2:15:18] province of Ontario. I see people visit

[2:15:22] that lookout from the GTA who are amazed

[2:15:25] at the view. You know, how buildings are

[2:15:27] not blocking the view like they are in

[2:15:29] Missaga. I'm amazed. I've uh you know

[2:15:32] even met people from places like

[2:15:34] Northern Ontario who say that it kind of

[2:15:37] reminds them of that with the rolling

[2:15:38] hills around the city. You know the

[2:15:40] beautiful landscape that we have. People

[2:15:42] from Lake Huron who say the sunsets are

[2:15:45] very competitive because of how far you

[2:15:48] can see across the city. So it really is

[2:15:50] a beautiful space and I want to protect

[2:15:53] it and um I'm not asking to stop

[2:15:57] development. I'm not, you know, I'm

[2:15:59] development is coming to the Hesper

[2:16:01] road. It makes a lot more sense on

[2:16:03] Hesper Road than in our heritage core

[2:16:05] areas, for example, like, you know, like

[2:16:07] towers and so forth. However, it needs

[2:16:10] to be done right because there are still

[2:16:12] things in this area of the city that we

[2:16:15] do want to preserve and the view from

[2:16:17] that lookout is one of them. And I

[2:16:19] realize the challenges with the MTSA. I

[2:16:22] understand the limitations of what we

[2:16:25] can do. However, I do believe if we have

[2:16:27] the right policies in place, we can

[2:16:30] position the buildings in such a way to

[2:16:33] preserve those views. And I want to have

[2:16:34] that discussion now before we have an

[2:16:37] application before us and then we're

[2:16:39] scrambling how to preserve those views.

[2:16:42] So, this is just being proactive and I

[2:16:45] want to just get this out for council's

[2:16:47] consideration and um I'll leave my

[2:16:49] comments at that. Thank you. So, if I

[2:16:52] could ask you a question on your

[2:16:54] amendment, you're just saying to be

[2:16:56] encouraged. You're not trying to

[2:16:57] restrict anything here because I notice

[2:17:00] your wording is very soft and saying

[2:17:01] encouraging.

[2:17:03] >> Thank you, Mayor Dan. That is a great

[2:17:05] question. My what I would really prefer

[2:17:08] to put in is shall, but I do understand

[2:17:11] the legal implications of that, right?

[2:17:14] especially with the limitations of the

[2:17:16] MTSA and how council has very little say

[2:17:20] over that kind of density. So I wanted

[2:17:22] to make the motion as strongly as

[2:17:25] possible while you know being legally

[2:17:27] compliant. I'll strongly encourage. I

[2:17:29] think gets the point across and in the

[2:17:32] future if we can tighten it up, we can

[2:17:34] see what we can do. But I wanted to get

[2:17:37] this out in the open so that we can be

[2:17:39] proactive right away and and have

[2:17:41] something in place as you know we change

[2:17:43] the zoning in the future and the

[2:17:45] official plan and all that.

[2:17:47] >> Okay. Councelor, your comments.

[2:17:49] >> Actually, I had a question. I wonder if

[2:17:51] there's a seconder for the motion. I

[2:17:52] didn't hear that.

[2:17:55] Councelor Schwar.

[2:17:58] >> Okay, councelor Kimson, you have

[2:18:00] comments.

[2:18:01] >> Um, is it too late for me to ask a

[2:18:03] question?

[2:18:05] >> Thank you very Thank you very much,

[2:18:06] Mayor Jan. Just wondering if staff could

[2:18:08] comment on what sort of precedent

[2:18:11] something like this might set for um

[2:18:14] other areas because I I think of you we talk about we we have so many

[2:18:18] incredible views and vistas throughout

[2:18:20] Cambridge and I'm wondering if that's

[2:18:23] something that could really prohibit

[2:18:26] some of the work that we've been trying

[2:18:28] to do.

[2:18:29] >> That's why I said staff will comment

[2:18:31] after every counselors have have done

[2:18:34] their comments and will I wanted to see

[2:18:37] if there is any any blow back from any

[2:18:40] of this.

[2:18:41] >> Thank you.

[2:18:42] >> So, councelor Hamilton, you have a

[2:18:43] comment

[2:18:44] >> or a question?

[2:18:48] » Okay. So, Bin or um

[2:18:52] sorry, who's going to get up and comment

[2:18:55] on the impact of potential impact of

[2:18:58] this amendment? and also to if you could

[2:19:01] u respond to councelor Kempson's

[2:19:04] question.

[2:19:06] >> Certainly through you madame mayor.

[2:19:08] Maybe I'll start big picture first. Um

[2:19:12] certainly uh it's not uncommon for

[2:19:15] municipalities to undertake viewshed

[2:19:17] studies and to identify very special

[2:19:20] views that they wish to protect for the

[2:19:22] long term. And in the process of doing

[2:19:25] that, a view shed study would undertake

[2:19:28] work such as establishing the

[2:19:30] boundaries. How what is the specific

[2:19:33] point from which we're taking this view?

[2:19:35] What are the specific things we're

[2:19:37] trying to see through this view? What's

[2:19:39] the window that we're looking through

[2:19:42] like that angle? How high or low and how

[2:19:45] far does it go into the distance? All of

[2:19:48] those things on a case-byase basis would

[2:19:51] be established through a viewshed. So, I

[2:19:53] wouldn't say it would have sort of an

[2:19:56] all-encompassing impact. It would be um

[2:20:00] the responsibility of council through

[2:20:02] community consultation to identify those

[2:20:04] very special areas that warrant that

[2:20:07] level of analysis in in order to then

[2:20:10] implement the protective measures to

[2:20:12] preserve those views.

[2:20:14] In terms of the specific motion,

[2:20:19] our suggestion would be not that it be

[2:20:24] identified at this point because we're

[2:20:26] not able in this moment to identify

[2:20:29] those factors, the very specific point

[2:20:31] we're viewing from the very specific

[2:20:33] points we're trying to see. instead to

[2:20:37] undertake that work through the capital

[2:20:39] project that will be going on um

[2:20:41] commencing soon and going through 2026

[2:20:43] of the official plan work where we can

[2:20:46] undertake that analysis and then

[2:20:48] subsequent to that we would implement

[2:20:50] those mechanisms through the zoning

[2:20:52] bylaw um phase 2 comprehensive review.

[2:20:58] So

[2:20:59] based on what you've said,

[2:21:03] um, is there any danger in not

[2:21:07] voting for this tonight? I know you're

[2:21:09] saying for future, but what would be the

[2:21:12] danger? You've given us a different side

[2:21:15] of this

[2:21:17] >> through you, mayor.

[2:21:20] Back to the previous discussion. This is

[2:21:22] a policy document. So any major

[2:21:25] development that will in fact come

[2:21:27] forward to implement this policy should

[2:21:30] council approve the secondary plan is

[2:21:32] not going to have an immediate effect.

[2:21:34] We're not going to see cranes popping up

[2:21:36] all over Hespler. There are planning

[2:21:39] applications that will be necessary to

[2:21:41] amend the zoning bylaw as uh general

[2:21:44] manager Bronberg said. Uh so nothing is

[2:21:49] going to catastrophically impact the

[2:21:52] important viewshed in the immediate

[2:21:54] short-term future.

[2:21:56] That's why my recommendation would be

[2:21:59] that council take the time to do the

[2:22:01] study through the official plan work.

[2:22:04] So how rather than losing this thought

[2:22:08] here,

[2:22:09] what would you suggest that councelor

[2:22:12] Matt is waiting to speak now, but what

[2:22:14] would you suggest be done so that we can

[2:22:16] accommodate this

[2:22:19] in future so it doesn't get lost

[2:22:22] through you madame mayor? My

[2:22:24] recommendation would be to separate this

[2:22:27] out from the secondary plan decision

[2:22:29] that you're making and to um return it

[2:22:32] immediately following perhaps to your

[2:22:34] discretion as a staff direction to

[2:22:38] undertake a fuse shed study relative to

[2:22:41] this point through the official plan

[2:22:43] work.

[2:22:45] >> Councelor Medic, did you want to speak?

[2:22:47] And is that

[2:22:48] >> Thank you, Mayor Dan. I did have a

[2:22:49] couple of questions which I'll just ask

[2:22:51] all at one and thank you very much Bren

[2:22:53] this has been very informative. Um my

[2:22:56] question is in terms of a timeline like

[2:22:59] um like how long will a lot of that work

[2:23:01] take? And my other question with all due

[2:23:04] respect is if an application is filed,

[2:23:07] you know, like this week or next week,

[2:23:09] what kind of mechanisms are there to

[2:23:11] have this be part of that process? And

[2:23:14] I'm asking that question for the

[2:23:15] residents, right? Because they're

[2:23:17] already aware of Ridgeo Forward, how

[2:23:19] we're moving ahead with that, right? And

[2:23:22] um you know if we see the corner

[2:23:24] developed at some point it still might

[2:23:26] be a long way off but if something if an

[2:23:29] application comes sooner than later what

[2:23:31] kind of mechanisms are there in place

[2:23:33] because I don't want this thought to be

[2:23:34] lost right

[2:23:36] >> through you madame mayor I certainly

[2:23:37] appreciate that concern what I will say

[2:23:40] is the language as it's been presented

[2:23:43] itself presents a concept but not an

[2:23:46] instruction. So it doesn't give us

[2:23:48] sufficient teeth to enforce anything

[2:23:50] anyways even if we are to implement it

[2:23:53] as a modification to the official plan.

[2:23:56] In order to secure that viewshed that

[2:23:59] detailed work needs to have occurred. So

[2:24:02] between now and that detailed work

[2:24:03] occurring there there is that

[2:24:06] incremental risk.

[2:24:08] Again though, I'll say I'm not expecting

[2:24:11] the entire corridor to be covered in

[2:24:14] cranes uh the moment this policy becomes

[2:24:17] implemented. And so I think perhaps

[2:24:20] there's a risk that one or maybe two

[2:24:22] tall buildings get put in place, but not

[2:24:24] that the entire important viewshed be

[2:24:27] compromised.

[2:24:30] So, councelor meter, are you all right

[2:24:33] if we take all of this and make this as

[2:24:35] a staff direction tonight to go forward

[2:24:38] and then we can pass the Hler road thing

[2:24:40] tonight?

[2:24:41] >> Thank you, Mayor Daniel. I am generally

[2:24:44] supportive of the Hesper Road secondary

[2:24:46] plan and I do want it to continue.

[2:24:48] However, I want some kind of a public

[2:24:51] record in place that the developers

[2:24:53] understand as well that if somebody

[2:24:56] tries to develop that corner, they know

[2:24:58] the intention. So, I don't know if we

[2:25:00] could maybe refer this part of it and

[2:25:02] wait till a certain date in the future

[2:25:05] or whatever we have to do, but um I

[2:25:07] think developers need to know that this

[2:25:09] is an important view of the community. I

[2:25:11] don't want to be scrambling afterwards

[2:25:13] because I've seen that happen quite a

[2:25:15] few times like over the years. Right.

[2:25:17] But that's what I'm saying. If we can

[2:25:18] direct staff tonight

[2:25:20] >> um

[2:25:21] >> to take this away and work on that and

[2:25:24] then we can go forward with the

[2:25:26] secondary plan tonight

[2:25:28] >> because that's how it could be done.

[2:25:30] Accommodate what you're asking for

[2:25:32] >> because you may lose this. I'm just

[2:25:34] saying you may lose this tonight.

[2:25:36] >> Well, I I'm willing to vote for it and I

[2:25:38] can always bring it back. So maybe I'll

[2:25:40] leave it on the table if it gets voted

[2:25:42] down then it can come back again at a

[2:25:44] future. Sagada Parkway didn't pass

[2:25:46] overnight. So, um, we'll see.

[2:25:49] >> Okay. Councelor Hamilton.

[2:25:52] >> Thank you, Mayor Le. May I just make a

[2:25:53] comment on the amendment? Quick comment.

[2:25:56] >> Yes, you can. And then I'm calling for

[2:25:57] the vote.

[2:25:57] >> Sure. Um, I want to thank councelor Meta

[2:25:59] for bringing it forward, but ultimately

[2:26:00] I can't accept it. I think what we're

[2:26:02] hearing from staff is that the Hesplur

[2:26:04] Road um plan is quite thorough. it's

[2:26:07] quite detailed and if we start choosing

[2:26:09] our own unique elements or perspectives

[2:26:11] to carve out of that general framework

[2:26:15] um we risk shattering the underlying

[2:26:17] unity of what seems to be a very

[2:26:18] thorough and detailed plan. uh otherwise

[2:26:20] it's death by a thousand paper cuts. And

[2:26:22] so I appreciate your sentiment, but it

[2:26:24] seems like staff already have what

[2:26:25] councelor Hermeta wants in this motion

[2:26:27] covered that it would come to council.

[2:26:29] And so rather than breaking it up into

[2:26:31] every single one of our unique

[2:26:33] viewpoints and perspectives, I think the

[2:26:35] general standpoint that we start of

[2:26:37] start with as a city and move forward

[2:26:38] with I think it's quite strong as it is.

[2:26:40] So I can't support the amendment.

[2:26:41] Thanks. [clears throat]

[2:26:44] >> Thank you. Um, I'm I am going to call

[2:26:46] the vote, but I am concerned about all

[2:26:49] of these amendments coming forward and

[2:26:51] how disruptive this is to the secondary

[2:26:54] plan. Um, this is very easily done with

[2:26:58] the direction to council. Um, we need to

[2:27:01] get on with the secondary plan. There's a lot of work that still has to

[2:27:04] be done. there's people who own

[2:27:06] properties who are waiting for us to

[2:27:08] make this decision and going forward

[2:27:10] we're losing um every day we're losing

[2:27:13] the time to build more housing in it. So

[2:27:16] I'm calling a vote now on the amendment.

[2:27:20] >> Opening voting on the amendment.

[2:27:27] Closing voting

[2:27:30] that's defeated by a vote of 6 to three.

[2:27:33] The original main motion, Madame Mayor,

[2:27:35] is now on the floor and it um is

[2:27:37] unaltered from its original form.

[2:27:40] >> Okay, we will call for that vote now.

[2:28:00] Opening voting.

[2:28:06] Closing voting.

[2:28:11] That carries by a vote of 8 to one.

[2:28:21] We're going to take a a recess for

[2:28:24] people to have a bi bio break

[2:28:31] about 10 That's

[2:38:24] They're ready.

[2:38:28] The final report for consideration

[2:38:30] before we move on to other business is

[2:38:32] 26-01

[2:38:34] IFS Bernett Avenue sanitary sewer and

[2:38:37] manhole reconfiguration.

[2:38:40] uh Yoga Shaw the general manager of

[2:38:42] infrastructure services will introduce

[2:38:44] this report to us.

[2:38:48] » Um this project and the report in front

[2:38:51] of you today is uh seeking additional

[2:38:53] funding amount um of 35,15

[2:38:59] as outlined within this report from the

[2:39:01] wastewater capital reserve fund. The

[2:39:04] primary driver for this project is due

[2:39:06] to ongoing sewer backups into residents

[2:39:09] home which requires weekly sewer

[2:39:11] monitoring by the operations team. The

[2:39:14] project will redirect wastewater flows

[2:39:16] to prevent wastewater backups within the

[2:39:18] system and eliminate ongoing operational

[2:39:21] maintenance and mitigate risk.

[2:39:27] » Okay. Does council have any questions be

[2:39:30] of Mr. Y Mr. Shaw before the motion goes

[2:39:33] on the floor.

[2:39:36] Okay. So, councelor Meta, you have the

[2:39:37] motion.

[2:39:42] » Mayor Jen, will may the clerk read the

[2:39:44] motion? Thank you.

[2:39:50] » So, the motion is moved by councelor

[2:39:52] Hermeta and seconded by councelor

[2:39:54] Ernshaw. Um the recommendation is to

[2:39:56] award the work under A/01748-40

[2:40:00] Bernett Avenue sanitary sewer and

[2:40:02] manhole reconfiguration contract to SUSA

[2:40:04] concrete in the amount of uh $150,000

[2:40:08] 300 $150,322.50

[2:40:11] and 50 cents plus HST and approve

[2:40:14] additional project funding for capital

[2:40:15] project A/01748-40

[2:40:19] Bett Avenue sanitary sewer and manhole

[2:40:21] reconfiguration project in the amount of

[2:40:23] $35,15

[2:40:26] as outlined within this report from the

[2:40:27] Wastewater Capital Reserve Fund.

[2:40:32] >> Now that it's on the floor, does council

[2:40:34] have any questions,

[2:40:36] any comments?

[2:40:38] Okay, we'll put that motion uh to the

[2:40:40] vote.

[2:40:42] Opening voting.

[2:40:56] Closing voting.

[2:40:58] That carries by vote of nine to zero.

[2:41:02] >> We will now proceed to other business.

[2:41:04] Does any member have any items to bring

[2:41:06] forward?

[2:41:07] Councelor Roberts.

[2:41:17] There we go. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Um,

[2:41:18] and through you. Yeah. I just want to

[2:41:20] mention the fact that the Willard Park

[2:41:23] um playground reconstruction is done and

[2:41:25] it's a fantastic new playground space in

[2:41:29] uh Ward 5. Um, and it's just so

[2:41:32] beautiful. I've spent a lot of time

[2:41:33] there in the last few weeks and it's

[2:41:35] full of kids, full of energy. I've heard

[2:41:37] from so many residents reaching out that

[2:41:39] they're just so happy and the inclusive

[2:41:41] nature of it means that kids of all

[2:41:43] abilities um and moms too can get on,

[2:41:46] dads can get on and off um and play with

[2:41:49] their children and um yeah, it's just a

[2:41:51] really welcome improvement to Willard

[2:41:54] Park. So, I want to thank staff for

[2:41:55] their really hard work on it. It's uh

[2:41:57] it's a fantastic space. So, I welcome

[2:41:58] everyone to come over to Ward 5 and

[2:42:00] check out the Willard Park playground.

[2:42:02] Thank you.

[2:42:03] >> Thanks for that. That's a great update

[2:42:05] to a capital project. Thanks for that

[2:42:07] information. Somebody else just took

[2:42:09] Councelor Meta, did you have another

[2:42:11] business as well?

[2:42:12] >> Thank you, Mayor Jen. Yes, I do.

[2:42:14] Construction is complete at the Lion's

[2:42:16] Caname Park on the new forest themed

[2:42:20] spray pad featuring accessible waterplay

[2:42:22] pathways, shade, seating, and hillside.

[2:42:25] There are also some specifically sorry

[2:42:28] specific furniture places sorry pieces

[2:42:31] arriving over the next two months but we

[2:42:33] are excited to have this brand new spray

[2:42:35] pad open for the public to enjoy and I

[2:42:38] just want to commend staff thank them

[2:42:40] for their hard work. I often wonder how

[2:42:42] we um you know have such fantastic fac

[2:42:45] sorry such fantastic facilities for the

[2:42:49] amount of money that we spend on them. I

[2:42:51] think they do a phenomenal job and you

[2:42:53] know quite often I often think how are

[2:42:55] we going to keep the neighborhood happy

[2:42:56] but I've had a lot of great feedback

[2:42:58] with what happened there and I want

[2:43:00] staff to be aware of that.

[2:43:03] >> Thank you both of you. Um so this

[2:43:06] evening we will be considering five

[2:43:08] motions. Four of which had notice

[2:43:10] provided at the July 21st council

[2:43:12] meeting. And we have one motion tonight

[2:43:15] from councelor Shwer and three from

[2:43:16] councelor Meta. And there will be a

[2:43:18] final motion presented for myself which

[2:43:20] will require that we first pass the

[2:43:22] motion to suspend the rules. So as a

[2:43:26] reminder again [clears throat] I ask

[2:43:28] council to be brief with comments and

[2:43:30] questions to ensure that we can get

[2:43:32] through all of the business on tonight's

[2:43:33] agenda. Council Schwear, you have the

[2:43:35] first motion regarding reducing costs

[2:43:37] and delays in development approvals to

[2:43:39] support housing affordability. Can you

[2:43:41] please read your motion?

[2:43:51] » Thank you, U. Mayor Leot. And if I could

[2:43:54] share the reading with Councelor

[2:43:55] Kempson. It's a pretty long motion.

[2:44:02] Thank you.

[2:44:04] uh moved by myself, seconded by

[2:44:05] councelor Kimson. Whereas residents are

[2:44:09] facing financial pressure as the cost of

[2:44:12] living continues to rise, including

[2:44:14] housing, food, utilities, fuel, and

[2:44:17] other essential expenses. And whereas

[2:44:20] municipal budgets must prioritize

[2:44:22] efficiency, accountability, and the

[2:44:25] responsible use of taxpayer dollars. And

[2:44:28] whereas development applications require

[2:44:30] extensive technical studies and reports

[2:44:33] prepared, certified and stamped by

[2:44:36] qualified licensed professionals who are

[2:44:38] subject to professional standards,

[2:44:40] ethical obligations, liability

[2:44:43] requirements, and regulatory oversight.

[2:44:46] And whereas delay delays multiple review

[2:44:50] cycles, additional studies, consultant

[2:44:52] reviews, and prolonged approval

[2:44:54] timelines can increase development costs

[2:44:57] that may ultimately be reflected

[2:44:59] [clears throat]

[2:44:59] in housing prices and affordability

[2:45:01] challenges.

[2:45:03] And whereas council has a responsibility

[2:45:05] to ensure development approval processes

[2:45:08] are transparent, efficient, accountable,

[2:45:10] and evidence-based while maintaining

[2:45:12] appropriate safeguards for public

[2:45:14] safety, public health safety,

[2:45:17] environmental protection, and compliance

[2:45:19] with applicable legislation. And whereas

[2:45:21] objective performance measures and

[2:45:24] benchmarking are necessary to identify

[2:45:26] opportunities for continuous improvement

[2:45:28] in the development approvals process.

[2:45:32] Therefore, be it resolved um that staff

[2:45:35] direct the council direct staff to

[2:45:37] expand quarterly current quarterly

[2:45:40] report on development activity to

[2:45:42] include development approval performance

[2:45:44] metrics including development approval

[2:45:47] timelines. The average review and

[2:45:49] approval timelines for the official plan

[2:45:51] amendments, zoning bylaw amendments, job

[2:45:54] plans of subdivision site plan

[2:45:56] applications and consent applications.

[2:46:00] the res views cycles and completeness

[2:46:03] and report on the frequency and nature

[2:46:05] of requests for additional information

[2:46:08] after applications have been deemed

[2:46:10] complete. The average number of

[2:46:12] resubmissions required per application

[2:46:14] and the principal causes of delays

[2:46:17] identifying delays attributable to

[2:46:20] applicants, municipal departments,

[2:46:22] external agency agencies, council

[2:46:25] decision on other factors where

[2:46:28] reasonably available and be of further

[2:46:30] resolve that staff prepare a report in

[2:46:33] Q4 on of 2026 on continuous improvement

[2:46:38] initiatives

[2:46:40] outlining Complete continuous

[2:46:42] improvement initiatives undertaken to

[2:46:44] improve the planning application

[2:46:46] process. Measurable outcomes achieved

[2:46:50] to date.

[2:46:52] Current initiatives underway and future

[2:46:55] initiatives to improve efficiency,

[2:46:57] transparency, and delivery costs.

[2:46:59] Operating costs outlining the total

[2:47:01] annual cost of development review

[2:47:03] functions including internal staffing,

[2:47:06] external consulting services, peer

[2:47:08] reviews, legal review costs and

[2:47:11] recoveries obtained through development

[2:47:13] application fees. the extent and cost of

[2:47:16] additional studies, peer reviews, and

[2:47:18] independent consultant reviews

[2:47:20] commissioned by the city.

[2:47:23] An estimated financial impacts

[2:47:25] associated with extended approval times,

[2:47:28] including the effect of carrying costs

[2:47:30] and financial costs on residential

[2:47:32] development properties where such

[2:47:34] estimates can be reasonably made.

[2:47:40] And be it further resolved that staff

[2:47:42] prepare a capital project as part of the

[2:47:44] draft 2027 budget to complete a service

[2:47:47] review of the planning process that

[2:47:49] would include a review of the previous

[2:47:51] five years outlining the number of city

[2:47:54] commissioned peer reviews. The total

[2:47:56] cost of such peer reviews, the subject

[2:47:58] matter of each peer review, whether each

[2:48:01] peer review resulted in a material

[2:48:03] change to the proposed development.

[2:48:05] Material change shall mean a

[2:48:06] modification to a proposed development,

[2:48:08] engineering design, environmental

[2:48:11] mitigation measure, infrastructure

[2:48:12] requirement, or planning rationale

[2:48:14] resulting directly from peerreview

[2:48:16] findings and the rationale for requiring

[2:48:19] additional studies, peer reviews or

[2:48:20] independent consultant reports.

[2:48:23] opportunities to further enhance

[2:48:25] efficiency while maintaining appropriate

[2:48:27] safeguards for public health safety,

[2:48:29] environmental protection, and

[2:48:31] legislation compliance, including

[2:48:34] reliance on certified and sealed reports

[2:48:36] prepared by appropriately licensed

[2:48:38] professionals eliminating internal

[2:48:40] review, opportunities to improve

[2:48:42] interdep departmental coordination, and

[2:48:44] cost impacts to differing service

[2:48:46] standards and performance targets. And

[2:48:49] be it further resolved that the service

[2:48:50] review establish measurable performance

[2:48:53] benchmarks and that staff report

[2:48:55] annually on development approval

[2:48:57] timelines, review cycle performance,

[2:49:00] peer review utilization, surface

[2:49:02] standard compliance and continuous

[2:49:04] improvement outcomes. benchmark

[2:49:07] Cambridge's development approval

[2:49:09] performance against comparable Ontario

[2:49:11] municipalities where this information is

[2:49:13] publicly available including Kitchener,

[2:49:16] Waterlue, Woolwitch, G, Milton,

[2:49:20] Burlington, Oakville, Georgetown, Bmpton

[2:49:23] and any other municipality staff deem

[2:49:25] appropriate and be it further resolved

[2:49:28] that staff undertake a project specific

[2:49:30] review of major growth areas and

[2:49:32] development projects including

[2:49:34] Rivermill, Cambridge West, Moffett

[2:49:36] Creek, North Cambridge East Side Lands

[2:49:39] north of Middleock Road, Northwest

[2:49:41] Hespler Area Community, Main Street

[2:49:44] East, corridor developments, and such

[2:49:46] review shall include where available,

[2:49:49] date of initial application submission,

[2:49:51] date the application was deemed

[2:49:53] complete, number of review cycles and

[2:49:55] resubmissions, number, purpose and cost

[2:49:58] of peer reviews, external consultant and

[2:50:00] thirdparty review costs, total elapse

[2:50:03] time from application submission to

[2:50:05] approval, significant sources of delay

[2:50:07] and comparison with similar developments

[2:50:09] in comparable municipalities. And

[2:50:12] finally, be it resolved that staff

[2:50:14] report back to council in Q2 of 2027 on

[2:50:18] the outcome of the service review. The

[2:50:20] end.

[2:50:24] Wow, that's a mouthful.

[2:50:26] Um,

[2:50:30] does anybody have any questions before I

[2:50:33] bring staff into this? Councelor

[2:50:35] Roberts.

[2:50:37] >> Yeah, thanks, Mayor Jen. I guess I'm

[2:50:39] going to need staff to answer it

[2:50:40] anyways. Is this this is I mean, it took

[2:50:42] us 10 minutes to read it. Is this

[2:50:43] possible for staff to do this work,

[2:50:46] especially some of the tight timelines I

[2:50:48] see in there? Um, in addition to the the

[2:50:51] workload they already have.

[2:50:54] >> So, Brenn, can I just say something

[2:50:57] to just No, stay stay up there. I guess

[2:51:00] my concern is the Q4 for 2026 when we've

[2:51:04] got the election in there and

[2:51:05] everybody's working on the budget at

[2:51:06] this point in time. Uh to so to add to

[2:51:10] councelor Robert's question, I don't see

[2:51:12] that as viable to be able to be done. So

[2:51:15] can you speak to that when you speak to

[2:51:16] hers

[2:51:21] through you madam mayor? A number of the

[2:51:23] mechanisms within this can be folded

[2:51:25] into our regular quarterly reporting as

[2:51:28] is with information that is readily

[2:51:31] available and we'll do a little bit of

[2:51:33] different configuring within our regular

[2:51:35] quarterly reporting and then the matters

[2:51:39] that require additional work I believe

[2:51:41] are are addressed through the capital

[2:51:44] project planning aspects.

[2:51:48] » So sorry just to follow up. So it is

[2:51:50] feasible. Staff can handle this as it's

[2:51:53] written.

[2:51:55] >> I'm confident through you, mayor, that

[2:51:57] we can address those quarterly pieces

[2:51:59] and and certainly if we find that there

[2:52:02] are barriers, I'll report back on that

[2:52:04] to council and express when we will be

[2:52:08] able to address that going forward.

[2:52:09] >> Okay, perfect. Thank you.

[2:52:10] >> So, I'm going to have Mr. Axia clarify

[2:52:13] that.

[2:52:14] >> Thank you. And through you, mayor. Um

[2:52:16] and just because we are going into this

[2:52:18] election period and think about it

[2:52:20] through the timing process when when we

[2:52:22] go into elections end of October the

[2:52:25] first month of November there's a ton of

[2:52:27] work that happens in that period of time

[2:52:29] uh significant amount of work in terms

[2:52:30] of council orientation we head quickly

[2:52:33] into the budget process to report

[2:52:35] something back in Q4 uh in terms of an

[2:52:38] actual report will be a difficult task

[2:52:41] to the degree that it's been outlined in

[2:52:43] this particular report. So yes, we do

[2:52:45] quarterly reports. We can do our best to

[2:52:48] try to weave a few things into that.

[2:52:50] Will we be able to accomplish all that's

[2:52:52] set out in this particular motion?

[2:52:54] Absolutely not. Uh in the in the fourth

[2:52:56] quarter of 2026 because again we're

[2:52:59] going into the election then quickly

[2:53:00] into budget.

[2:53:04] >> Councelor Ernaw.

[2:53:05] >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Liot. do have a

[2:53:07] question uh uh with respect to the

[2:53:11] portion of the motion under the heading

[2:53:13] opportunities to further enhance

[2:53:15] efficiency while maintaining appropriate

[2:53:16] safeguards. The first bullet point there

[2:53:19] says reliance on certified and sealed

[2:53:22] reports prepared by appropriately

[2:53:25] licensed professionals eliminating

[2:53:27] internal review. That sounds to me like

[2:53:30] there would be no opportunity for our

[2:53:34] staff

[2:53:35] uh to under any circumstances seek a

[2:53:38] peer review. Uh we would be forced to

[2:53:41] rely on the uh reports that had been

[2:53:44] provided by the developer only. And

[2:53:47] while in many many many cases that would

[2:53:50] be fine, there are going to be some

[2:53:52] cases where those reports are of

[2:53:54] questionable validity. And I don't see a

[2:53:58] discretion here to permit um in

[2:54:01] extraordinary circumstances the uh

[2:54:03] request for a peer review. And I'm just

[2:54:04] wondering if that was intentional, if

[2:54:07] I've understood it correctly, or if

[2:54:08] there's an explanation. Thanks.

[2:54:14] » So, Mr. Axia,

[2:54:16] >> that's the council to answer.

[2:54:17] >> Oh, okay. Counselors, do you want to

[2:54:19] respond to that, please?

[2:54:29] Councelor Schwar, can you respond to

[2:54:30] that, please?

[2:54:31] >> Yes, thank you. So, in this it's it does

[2:54:34] say um while maintaining appropriate

[2:54:37] safeguards for public safety, uh public

[2:54:40] health safety, environmental protection,

[2:54:42] and legislative compliance.

[2:54:47] » I don't with respect that doesn't answer

[2:54:49] my question.

[2:54:53] I'm I'm not sure. So, can you see your

[2:54:55] question again, councelor?

[2:54:58] >> Yes, thank you. The bullet point says

[2:55:01] that there will be reliance on certified

[2:55:03] and sealed reports prepared by

[2:55:05] appropriately licensed professionals and

[2:55:07] I understand that to mean professionals

[2:55:09] that are uh engaged by the developer

[2:55:12] who's making the application. And then

[2:55:14] it says eliminating internal review,

[2:55:18] which to me says that we our staff has

[2:55:20] no opportunity to question the veracity

[2:55:23] of the report with which they're

[2:55:25] presented. It has to be accepted at face

[2:55:27] value, even if it's inadequate in some

[2:55:29] way. That's my question.

[2:55:42] Um thank you Mayor Le and thanks for

[2:55:44] your question. So for me what I mean

[2:55:47] about that um when there is for example

[2:55:50] there's uh there's consultants that we

[2:55:53] get and the uh developer has has prepaid

[2:55:57] for a consultant and has given the

[2:56:00] information to the staff. um the staff

[2:56:04] instead of having duplicate reviews or duplicate um duplicate studies they

[2:56:10] should be relying on the study that is

[2:56:13] before them and and that was the whole

[2:56:15] point even the Melissa Derell was saying

[2:56:18] is you know we shouldn't be having

[2:56:21] duplicate studies if a study was done by

[2:56:24] a licensed professional

[2:56:31] do you want Want to follow up with that?

[2:56:33] Councelor Ernshaw?

[2:56:37] » It wouldn't be a question so much as a

[2:56:38] comment. I think that's dangerous.

[2:56:43] » Yes, I do too. Councelor Cooper,

[2:56:46] >> I'm I'm going to wait for comments. Mind

[2:56:48] to comment if we're done with questions.

[2:56:50] >> Councelor Kimson

[2:56:53] >> already approved this.

[2:57:00] Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And for

[2:57:01] you, um I'm wondering if perhaps um

[2:57:06] there would be there would be um the

[2:57:09] opportunity to perhaps um

[2:57:14] to ch change the specific wording, for

[2:57:16] example. Um because I certainly think

[2:57:19] that the intent was that not that it was

[2:57:21] an all or nothing, but in many in many

[2:57:24] cases when something when something

[2:57:26] comes through and it has a an engineer

[2:57:29] stamp for example, it has an

[2:57:31] architecture stamp, an architect stamp

[2:57:33] for example, um in in those situations

[2:57:36] where you have the appropriately

[2:57:37] licensed individual using their their

[2:57:40] seal, their technical report, um

[2:57:44] we shouldn't necessarily automatically

[2:57:47] default default to the requirement for

[2:57:49] review, but whether or not there is a

[2:57:52] way that we can

[2:57:54] decrease the amount of time I guess

[2:57:57] would be there. So, I don't know if

[2:57:58] eliminating is necessarily the word and

[2:58:00] perhaps that's a little too strong, but

[2:58:02] I'm wondering if that's something where

[2:58:03] we could um rework the intent if that

[2:58:07] would make um councelor Ernshaw feel

[2:58:10] better.

[2:58:12] Um,

[2:58:14] following up on that same thing, when I

[2:58:16] see Reliance and certified and sealed

[2:58:18] reports, what do you mean by sealed?

[2:58:21] Like so that nobody gets to see them,

[2:58:23] the public doesn't get to see them. What

[2:58:25] do you mean by that?

[2:58:26] >> So the idea is when someone would use

[2:58:27] their seal or their stamp.

[2:58:29] >> Okay. Because the wording sounds like

[2:58:31] it's an NDA or something here,

[2:58:33] >> right? So I I Yes. I guess the idea

[2:58:35] would be like the certified like the

[2:58:36] stamped or so that it's it's by an

[2:58:39] individual who has the appropriate

[2:58:42] license through their through their

[2:58:45] college, their trade, um their their

[2:58:47] professional designation. So essentially

[2:58:49] by putting it forward under their name,

[2:58:52] they're they're putting their their

[2:58:54] livelihood, they're putting their stamp

[2:58:56] on it, per se. and you you would you

[2:58:59] would like to think that that um that is

[2:59:02] coming forward in such in such a way

[2:59:03] that it has a um a level of validity to

[2:59:06] it.

[2:59:10] » Are there any other questions before we

[2:59:11] go to comments? Councelor Roberts.

[2:59:16] >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor Jan. And I I

[2:59:17] guess this question is for maybe

[2:59:19] councelor, but would the the two

[2:59:21] councilors that are bringing this

[2:59:22] forward be willing to adjust that Q4

[2:59:25] timeline to

[2:59:28] next year potentially just given what's

[2:59:30] going on with the election and what um

[2:59:33] city manager Axia had spoken about in

[2:59:35] terms of the impact on staff over the

[2:59:38] next few months with budget and

[2:59:39] everything.

[2:59:41] Well, in addition to that, there may be

[2:59:44] new counselors around this horseshoe

[2:59:46] >> who will have no idea what this is

[2:59:48] about. They've had no onboarding, no no

[2:59:51] workshops, nothing in order to

[2:59:53] comprehend what this is even about. And

[2:59:55] I think that's very unfair to be

[2:59:57] bringing forward to a new council as

[2:59:59] well. That would be my comment here.

[3:00:01] Council Schwar.

[3:00:02] >> Um, thank you. Yeah, I'd like to respond

[3:00:04] to that. Um I did um speak with staff

[3:00:08] like we've been instructed prior to

[3:00:10] bringing this motion forward and the

[3:00:13] dates were provided by them with that

[3:00:15] they felt comfortable. Um I don't work

[3:00:18] in that department obviously I don't

[3:00:20] know their workload but the dates were

[3:00:23] because of what was felt and I I believe

[3:00:26] Miss Neely said that for them it's just

[3:00:29] a matter of this ad adjusting um some

[3:00:32] figures or um so it would be something

[3:00:35] that they could easily do and that's why

[3:00:39] this those dates were brought.

[3:00:43] However, if u Mr. Bramberg um disagrees.

[3:00:48] It's his department. So,

[3:00:51] >> well, as the city manager said, those

[3:00:53] dates are not not can't be accommodated.

[3:00:56] Councelor Cooper,

[3:00:58] >> are we on comments now?

[3:01:00] >> Okay. Thank you. Um

[3:01:03] I'm I'm I'm very I'm very concerned

[3:01:05] about this. I understand the spirit of

[3:01:07] this. Um it's nice. Obviously, we want

[3:01:09] to find um we want to find efficiencies.

[3:01:13] We want to speed things up, but I'm I'm

[3:01:15] very concerned about the actual the

[3:01:17] depth, the volume of this. Um when our

[3:01:20] frankly our staff are already incredibly

[3:01:22] busy. If I was staff right now, I'd be

[3:01:24] cringing at looking at at what is being

[3:01:26] asked right now. I feel there's

[3:01:28] definitely an element of um unfairly

[3:01:30] questioning staff to an excessive level.

[3:01:33] And obviously they need accountability.

[3:01:36] Um, but I feel I I just feel this is an overreach. Um, to the point

[3:01:42] it's almost offensive to staff when we hire quality staff and we trust them

[3:01:47] to do a good job and I feel like they're

[3:01:49] not going to be spending their time

[3:01:50] doing their job. They're going to be

[3:01:51] spending defending spending time writing

[3:01:53] a pause defending what they've done for

[3:01:55] the past four years. Um, and that's why

[3:01:58] I'm very con I'm very concerned about

[3:02:00] that. It's um I feel this is just too

[3:02:02] much. Um, again, nothing wrong with

[3:02:05] finding efficiencies. I think this goes

[3:02:07] way too far to the point of being

[3:02:08] offensive to staff. That's just my

[3:02:10] opinion. Thank you,

[3:02:11] >> Councelor Kimson.

[3:02:15] >> Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. And um I

[3:02:18] guess I just would like to get some

[3:02:19] clarification on a comment that you made

[3:02:21] about um bringing this motion in today

[3:02:25] and how um as as this is towards the end

[3:02:29] of this term, how the next council there

[3:02:32] may be different people here and they

[3:02:33] may not wish to follow it. Um however,

[3:02:36] we're here today and we have this motion

[3:02:38] and others before us. So does that I'm

[3:02:40] not sure how that what you mean by that

[3:02:42] because we are the sitting council of

[3:02:44] the day and we are in the position where

[3:02:47] if we choose we can approve or not

[3:02:50] approve a motion before us and that is

[3:02:53] something where um you know come

[3:02:56] November December if there's others they

[3:02:58] wish to change it they can but for now

[3:03:00] we have we have the ability to do that

[3:03:03] am I correct

[3:03:04] >> no that's not what I said what I said is

[3:03:07] new counselors would not be able to

[3:03:08] understand any reports coming forward,

[3:03:12] accept them or re rework them or

[3:03:14] anything because they won't have any

[3:03:16] comprehension of what they're even

[3:03:17] about. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying what you had said.

[3:03:24] So, I I realize this council has this

[3:03:27] option here tonight.

[3:03:29] I'm saying that you've put dates in here

[3:03:32] that are unachievable according to to um

[3:03:36] first off by the city manager, but also

[3:03:39] I don't I don't think that that next

[3:03:41] coun the timing is here for the next

[3:03:43] council to be able to work with whatever

[3:03:45] information comes forward. That's all.

[3:03:48] Uh if I may follow up, I certainly I I

[3:03:51] wouldn't be opposed to um adjusting the

[3:03:53] dates per um city manager Axia um given that he is familiar with the

[3:04:00] workflow and that what staff are working

[3:04:02] on at this time and if that's something

[3:04:04] that we need to do and that would also

[3:04:05] allow for additional time for um

[3:04:08] whatever whoever is here as far as

[3:04:10] council goes to become more familiar

[3:04:12] with it. I think that's a reasonable

[3:04:14] compromise.

[3:04:19] Thank you and through through you chair.

[3:04:22] Um the dates is one aspect of this and I

[3:04:25] will build a bit on what councelor

[3:04:26] Cooper had had mentioned as well is that

[3:04:29] this is really diving deep into the

[3:04:31] operations and the technical

[3:04:33] requirements that staff professional

[3:04:36] staff um are required to do. and it is

[3:04:41] beginning to have uh elected officials

[3:04:43] at the policy and governance level come

[3:04:46] directly into the operation to a very uh

[3:04:48] deep extent. So that is that is a

[3:04:50] concerning line uh that it's not that we

[3:04:54] don't want to have efficiencies. I do

[3:04:56] think we we all need to have

[3:04:57] efficiencies um but it is inviting too

[3:05:00] much uh technical expertise that staff

[3:05:04] have that council is now diving too far

[3:05:07] into the operation. So I do caution that

[3:05:10] as well. Uh and do encourage council to

[3:05:14] uh consider staying at the policy and

[3:05:15] governance level.

[3:05:18] >> Councelor Hamilton.

[3:05:21] >> Thank you, Mayor Le and through you. Um

[3:05:23] and I think council's probably unified

[3:05:25] when we say we all want to reduce costs

[3:05:27] and delays in development approvals to

[3:05:29] support housing affordability. I think

[3:05:30] we're all on the same boat there. Um,

[3:05:34] but I think if the goal is, of course,

[3:05:36] we want to reduce costs and delays in

[3:05:38] planning. We know the time is money, we

[3:05:39] all want more clarity, done. I think

[3:05:41] we're all in agreement there. But I

[3:05:42] think my challenge is with this, and I

[3:05:44] think we're all dancing around it, is

[3:05:45] that this does dive pretty deep into

[3:05:48] city processes um asking for quarterly

[3:05:51] reports, another report in Q4, a new

[3:05:53] capital project. Um, and of course, as

[3:05:56] councelor um, uh, Ernshaw pointed out

[3:05:59] the question around peer review. um not

[3:06:02] necessarily do we need peer reviews all

[3:06:04] the time but what safety mechanism would

[3:06:05] we have should we decide hey the

[3:06:08] veracity of this report should be

[3:06:09] questioned should we get a peer review

[3:06:12] um so I think we all agree the spirit is

[3:06:15] strong but the flesh on this one might

[3:06:17] be a little weak so might I suggest to

[3:06:20] the two movers to maybe bring this back

[3:06:23] possibly at the September 15th meeting

[3:06:26] maybe diving a little less deep skimming

[3:06:28] a little bit more on the surface working

[3:06:29] a bit more with staff in terms of the

[3:06:31] timelines not diving into the

[3:06:32] operational components of the the city.

[3:06:35] Um, and that might make this a little

[3:06:37] bit more tangible and digestible for

[3:06:39] this council or whomever sits around

[3:06:40] this horseshoe uh during the first term

[3:06:43] of 2027 cuz I'm not sure if I can

[3:06:46] support it in this form because it is it

[3:06:49] is pretty intense. Um, but I understand

[3:06:52] the impetus behind it and I understand

[3:06:54] the need for this clarity like that much

[3:06:56] is not lost on me. So, I'm just

[3:06:57] wondering if if the mover and the

[3:06:58] secondary would consider that, bring it

[3:07:00] back with a little bit less oomph that's

[3:07:03] more digestible.

[3:07:04] >> Are you asking for a deferral?

[3:07:06] >> Uh, if in the deferral some work on this

[3:07:09] could be done, sure. But if if there's

[3:07:13] if the mover and the second aren't

[3:07:14] willing to alter the motion, then there

[3:07:16] would be no point of the deferral.

[3:07:18] >> You know what I mean?

[3:07:19] >> No. No. They they have that opportunity

[3:07:22] to work. You're asking to work on it.

[3:07:24] So, you're asking for a deferral till

[3:07:25] then? I would ask for a deferral in that

[3:07:27] case. Yes.

[3:07:27] >> Okay. Do you have a seconder?

[3:07:29] Councelor Earshaw.

[3:07:31] >> Okay. We will vote on the deferral.

[3:07:43] » Opening voting.

[3:07:51] Closing voting.

[3:07:53] That carries unanimously.

[3:08:08] Councelor Meta now has the second motion

[3:08:10] to present tonight regarding Greenfisted

[3:08:12] Drive and Essex Point Drive. I

[3:08:13] understand you have res revised wording

[3:08:15] for this motion that was published on

[3:08:17] the addendum.

[3:08:19] Um we will ask if there are any

[3:08:21] objections from council to put forward

[3:08:22] the motion as revised. And is there a

[3:08:25] seconder for this motion?

[3:08:27] >> Thank you, Mayor Jen. Yes, there is. It

[3:08:29] is moved by myself, seconded by

[3:08:31] councelor Sherryi. And you are right.

[3:08:33] The word has changed. The recommendation

[3:08:36] is whereas the residential area near

[3:08:39] Green Vista Drive.

[3:08:40] >> Can you start over please?

[3:08:42] >> Yeah. Um the motion is moved by myself,

[3:08:45] seconded by councelor Sheri

[3:08:48] and the recommendation is whereas the

[3:08:51] residential area near Green Vista Drive

[3:08:53] and Essex Point Drive has experienced

[3:08:56] significant growth and is home to a

[3:08:58] large and growing number of young

[3:09:00] families. And whereas the recently

[3:09:02] approved city of Cambridge parks master

[3:09:05] plan identifies a specific area north of

[3:09:08] Green Vista Drive as having a lower

[3:09:11] parkland provision service level and

[3:09:13] prioritizes it for future park

[3:09:15] amenities. And whereas there is a

[3:09:18] pressing need for local accessible and

[3:09:20] active recreational facilities for

[3:09:23] children, youth, and families in this

[3:09:25] specific neighborhood. And whereas

[3:09:27] design work on capital projects

[3:09:30] A01463-40

[3:09:35] park development sagena subdivision has

[3:09:37] commenced that city staff be directed to

[3:09:40] explore the potential for installing

[3:09:44] park features that may include a

[3:09:46] playground shade structure seating andor

[3:09:49] outdoor courts and the Essex Point and

[3:09:52] Green Vista Drive trail head parks. and

[3:09:55] that staff conduct consultation with the

[3:09:58] community residents both online and in

[3:10:01] person. And I would like to speak to the

[3:10:03] motion, please.

[3:10:09] So, you jumped in before we got the

[3:10:11] approval of council for the revised mo

[3:10:13] motion. So, can I just have a hands up?

[3:10:15] Is everybody okay with the revised

[3:10:17] motion?

[3:10:20] Hands up if you're approved. Okay. Okay.

[3:10:24] Guess council have any questions on this

[3:10:29] council. Is that for this?

[3:10:34] Council Roberts.

[3:10:36] Thank you, Mayor Jan, and through you.

[3:10:37] Um, I just have a question for staff.

[3:10:39] So, it says here that design work has

[3:10:41] commenced. Um, so would this be the

[3:10:44] appropriate time for this motion to come

[3:10:46] forward? It kind of reminds me of one

[3:10:48] that we saw around budget time. So, I

[3:10:50] wasn't sure if it was something that

[3:10:52] should be would be more appropriately

[3:10:54] brought up at budget time or since the

[3:10:56] project is underway, does it make sense

[3:10:59] for this to be discussed and brought

[3:11:01] forward now?

[3:11:03] >> So, it's important for council to note

[3:11:06] at this point in time that this is an

[3:11:08] approved 2024 capital project in place

[3:11:11] for Green Vista and Essex Point Drive

[3:11:13] and it is scheduled to start in 2027.

[3:11:16] Motion in front of council direct staff

[3:11:18] to explore certain park amenities during

[3:11:20] the project and it directs staff to

[3:11:22] conduct consultation with community

[3:11:25] residents as part of the project's

[3:11:27] scope. And Alex, I see you're trying to

[3:11:29] get up here to speak to this. No.

[3:11:32] Yes, you are. I want to hear from you. I

[3:11:34] want to hear from you.

[3:11:35] >> True you, Madam Mayor. You answered that

[3:11:37] question, so I don't I didn't need to.

[3:11:40] Thanks.

[3:11:41] >> Sorry. Just to follow up. So, the answer

[3:11:43] is this is already happening. we don't

[3:11:45] need to be bringing this motion forward.

[3:11:46] Is that what the answer is?

[3:11:49] >> Correct. This is an approved capital

[3:11:51] project from 2024 and we are assuming

[3:11:53] the lands and so the project is

[3:11:55] scheduled to start in 2027

[3:11:57] >> including public consultation.

[3:11:58] >> That's right.

[3:11:59] >> Thank you.

[3:12:00] >> Yep.

[3:12:02] >> Thank you.

[3:12:02] >> Do you want to withdraw this motion?

[3:12:05] >> Thank you.

[3:12:06] >> Want to proceed to keep the ball rolling

[3:12:08] and to to symbolize to the community

[3:12:11] that it is happening. I've been having a

[3:12:13] lot of questions from people just asking

[3:12:15] about the delays of that corner and this

[3:12:18] just lets them know that the momentum is

[3:12:20] carrying on and also the public will

[3:12:24] have some feedback that they want to be

[3:12:26] able to you know to raise the issues

[3:12:28] that they want to see like for example

[3:12:31] whether they want to have basketball

[3:12:33] instead of a shade structure or if

[3:12:35] they're fine with a shade structure and

[3:12:37] certainly they want to have a playground

[3:12:38] as well. So this is in my view it's just

[3:12:41] more routine just to um signal to the

[3:12:44] community that things are happening and

[3:12:46] to continue to consult with the

[3:12:48] residents.

[3:13:31] I'm trying to figure out how to deal

[3:13:32] with this, Nick, because this this

[3:13:34] motion is like it's already being done.

[3:13:37] It's like we're redoing the same work

[3:13:40] all over again and you're asking staff

[3:13:41] to redo the same work. So, just trying

[3:13:44] to figure out how to deal with this.

[3:13:46] >> Thank you for letting me

[3:13:48] >> Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. We heard you.

[3:13:52] Councelor Kimson, while we're trying to

[3:13:54] figure this out, did you have a

[3:13:55] question?

[3:13:56] >> Um, I'll I'll wait for you to try and

[3:13:59] figure things out.

[3:14:01] >> I don't know if I'm going to get to that

[3:14:03] point.

[3:14:09] » Councelor Divine, do you have a

[3:14:10] question?

[3:14:10] >> Like two minutes.

[3:14:12] >> Well, question or comment. Um, I don't

[3:14:16] understand why it's here. I think we I

[3:14:18] would ask councelor M to withdraw it if

[3:14:21] this is being done and it's already

[3:14:23] being done. I we're flogging a dead

[3:14:26] horse.

[3:14:28] I I and be quite honest with you, if it

[3:14:31] comes to a vote, I'll vote against it

[3:14:33] because it doesn't need to be here.

[3:14:38] » Do you want to call a point of order on

[3:14:39] this?

[3:14:40] >> I can. Sure. Call point of order. Sure.

[3:14:42] >> Okay.

[3:14:43] >> You happy to do that? Okay. I I I don't

[3:14:46] think it should be here or it's being

[3:14:48] done. The city staff have worked on

[3:14:50] this. They've consulted and

[3:14:54] I I don't think it should be. I really

[3:14:56] don't. Sorry.

[3:14:58] >> Okay. I approve your point of order.

[3:15:00] Motion's off the floor.

[3:15:02] >> Thank you.

[3:15:14] Councelor

[3:15:18] Meta, your next motion is on park

[3:15:20] amenities for Green Vista Drive and

[3:15:22] Essex Point Drive. Can you please put

[3:15:25] your motion on the floor? And who is

[3:15:26] your seconder?

[3:15:27] >> Thank you, Mayor Jane. We just dealt

[3:15:29] with that. This is the next one's on the

[3:15:31] density transfer.

[3:15:35] » Okay, so it's two different motions. So

[3:15:37] you both of them are

[3:15:40] >> Oh, I didn't know that was

[3:15:45] to this one.

[3:15:46] >> Oops, sorry. That's that was me. Sorry.

[3:15:49] Apologize for that. The investigation of

[3:15:51] the density transfer. So, who's your

[3:15:53] seconder?

[3:15:54] >> Thank you, Mayor Jan. Councelor Cooper

[3:15:56] would be the seconder.

[3:16:00] » Okay. So the the whereas the city of

[3:16:02] Cambridge continually needs to review

[3:16:05] additional proactive planning tools to

[3:16:07] manage sorry significant growth while

[3:16:10] protecting its very unique character.

[3:16:13] And whereas transfer of development

[3:16:14] rights TDRs can preserve sensitive lands

[3:16:18] and heritage areas while directing

[3:16:20] density to more appropriate corridors.

[3:16:23] And whereas such frameworks can balance

[3:16:25] intensification with [snorts]

[3:16:27] neighborhood character. And whereas the

[3:16:30] 2026 the 2030 council will require

[3:16:34] additional planning options to guide

[3:16:36] future growth. Now therefore be it

[3:16:38] resolved that council direct staff to

[3:16:41] research transfer of development right

[3:16:44] TDR policies across Canada and report

[3:16:47] back to the new council by the end of

[3:16:50] 2027 with options and best practices for

[3:16:54] consideration.

[3:16:56] Now I would like to speak to it.

[3:16:58] >> Okay. Okay. Are there any questions?

[3:17:00] Councilor Roberts.

[3:17:05] » Thank you, Mayor Jan. And through you,

[3:17:06] um, isn't this pretty much the like what

[3:17:10] we just did, the Hustler road secondary

[3:17:11] plan, like we were already ensuring that

[3:17:14] intens like the density is going in the

[3:17:16] places where it needs to go. And this

[3:17:17] sounds like it might just be moving

[3:17:20] things around in places or am I

[3:17:23] understanding it incorrectly?

[3:17:26] Um

[3:17:27] >> to me like a secondary plan is

[3:17:29] >> the tool around this right

[3:17:30] >> I think he's talking about through the

[3:17:32] whole city so right yes correct um

[3:17:35] >> thank you mayor J

[3:17:38] comment now

[3:17:39] >> this would be comprehensive across the

[3:17:41] entire city and it's also a separate

[3:17:44] policy as well

[3:17:48] » do you want to speak more to that or do

[3:17:50] you want to do you have a followup

[3:17:51] councelor Roberts

[3:17:54] >> I do yeah thank you Sorry. Go ahead. No,

[3:17:56] go ahead.

[3:17:56] >> Um,

[3:17:58] >> I just really don't understand how this

[3:17:59] would work. So, if someone owns a piece

[3:18:01] of land and they apply for

[3:18:05] a development application, um, we can

[3:18:07] just say no, you have to move and buy

[3:18:09] land somewhere else like I don't really

[3:18:11] understand logistically. Is someone able

[3:18:14] to speak to the logistics of how TDRs

[3:18:18] work? And

[3:18:20] before we look at digging deeper into

[3:18:23] it,

[3:18:25] Um I think think councelor meta can

[3:18:28] speak to that but I think he's just

[3:18:29] asking for us to research the policies

[3:18:31] that are out there not to do do anything

[3:18:33] with them just come back with a report

[3:18:35] on all what policies are available

[3:18:37] councelor am I correct

[3:18:39] >> council may this is just to research the

[3:18:42] policy but I think I would like to speak

[3:18:44] to it and that might answer some of the

[3:18:46] questions and if council has more

[3:18:49] questions then we could dive into that

[3:18:51] then

[3:18:52] >> if you're okay with that or I can

[3:18:54] >> I And we're going to go to the questions

[3:18:56] just for procedural reasons and then

[3:18:58] maybe if you if you want to hold if they

[3:19:00] have questions that relate to you can

[3:19:03] answer them all at the same time. Is

[3:19:05] that okay?

[3:19:06] >> Okay.

[3:19:07] Councelor Hamilton.

[3:19:09] >> Uh thank you Mayor Leon for you. Um this

[3:19:11] is new to me like the idea of dividing

[3:19:13] up density of let's say something like a

[3:19:15] farmland and selling off pieces like

[3:19:16] credits to try to earn density in other

[3:19:18] areas. Uh, I don't want to be that guy

[3:19:21] always deferring motions tonight, but

[3:19:23] maybe a deferral on the floor so council

[3:19:24] can actually understand what TDs are,

[3:19:26] where they've been used, the pros and

[3:19:28] cons, whether or not we need them in

[3:19:30] this type of a municipality, whether or

[3:19:32] not they're more suited for rural or

[3:19:34] urban. I just don't know what they are.

[3:19:36] So, I don't know if I should tell staff

[3:19:37] to, hey, go research these if ultimately

[3:19:39] it won't be worth their best interest.

[3:19:41] Or maybe staff can comment on if this

[3:19:43] will be ownorous or not.

[3:19:45] >> Okay. So I should have gone to him for

[3:19:47] the comment if you're putting a deferral

[3:19:48] on the fair because the floor because

[3:19:50] that's not fair to the council withdraw

[3:19:53] your deferral while we go I am happy to

[3:19:55] withdraw the

[3:19:55] >> Okay. So let's go to councelor meta and

[3:19:57] let him talk about this.

[3:19:59] >> Thank you mayor Jan very quickly before

[3:20:01] I say my um speech or can I just answer

[3:20:05] the question briefly since councelor

[3:20:07] Hamilton did ask a question. So there

[3:20:10] are different ways to do this for

[3:20:11] different reasons. Some municipalities

[3:20:13] do it to save heritage. So Vancouver

[3:20:16] would be one such municipality. It is a

[3:20:18] tool to save heritage because you know

[3:20:21] the high land values for example that's

[3:20:23] a deterrent to heritage preservation. So

[3:20:26] it's a market orientated solution to try

[3:20:28] to address that. Other cities do it so

[3:20:32] that you don't get a cannon effect down

[3:20:33] one road that you get a like a variety

[3:20:35] of heights so that maybe one building is

[3:20:38] four stories, the next one over might be

[3:20:40] 15 story. But it's done in a way of

[3:20:42] course where it all fits but it doesn't

[3:20:44] have that wall down the street and

[3:20:46] reduce street in Ottawa would be you

[3:20:48] know an an example of of that approach.

[3:20:51] So um I will get into my remarks um if

[3:20:55] that's good with you mayor Jen. So we

[3:20:57] are facing a defining moment in our

[3:20:59] city's history. Growth pressures are

[3:21:02] accelerating across Ontario and like

[3:21:04] many municipalities, we are grappling

[3:21:07] with how to accommodate new housing and

[3:21:09] density without losing the very unique

[3:21:12] character, heritage and identity of our

[3:21:14] neighborhoods. I first encountered the

[3:21:17] mechanics of transfer of development

[3:21:18] rights or density transfers at a

[3:21:21] conference. I saw it not just as a

[3:21:24] theoretical academic co concept but also

[3:21:27] a pragmatic marketdriven planning tool

[3:21:30] that actively empower cities to manage

[3:21:33] growth rather than merely react to it.

[3:21:37] As reported in the water region record,

[3:21:40] this tool allows density to be traded or

[3:21:43] sold between property owners. It enables

[3:21:46] a prop a project to exceed base density

[3:21:50] limits in designated appropriate areas

[3:21:53] while actively safeguarding vulnerable

[3:21:55] heritage or lowdensity neighborhoods

[3:21:58] from outofscale development. Put simply,

[3:22:00] it is a smart mechanism to lift unwanted

[3:22:04] inappropriate density off a site that

[3:22:06] cannot handle it whether due to

[3:22:08] infrastructure limits, environmental

[3:22:10] sensitivities, heritage sensitivity, or

[3:22:14] neighborhood fabric. and it safely

[3:22:16] transfers it to a location that is

[3:22:18] optimized and zoned for that level of

[3:22:20] growth. We need modern tools to match

[3:22:23] modern challenges. Relying on a rigid

[3:22:26] one-sizefits-all approach to infill

[3:22:28] development creates unnecessary friction

[3:22:31] between residents, council, and

[3:22:33] developers. And by directing staff to

[3:22:36] research how other Canadian

[3:22:37] municipalities have successfully

[3:22:39] implemented transfer of development

[3:22:41] right policies, we are doing our due

[3:22:43] diligence. We are asking staff to study

[3:22:46] options and best practices so that when

[3:22:49] the new term of council arrives, it will

[3:22:52] have a fully vetted homegrown toolkit

[3:22:54] ready for deployment. And this is just

[3:22:57] another approach in the tool box or

[3:22:59] another tool in the toolbox. I know

[3:23:01] we've already got great policies and

[3:23:03] we're working on secondary plans and

[3:23:05] things like that, but this is another

[3:23:07] tool that we can have in addition to

[3:23:09] that. And I think the more the more

[3:23:12] tools that we have, so to speak, you

[3:23:14] know, the more we can respond to

[3:23:16] community concerns. So, I encourage you

[3:23:19] as my colleagues and friends to vote in

[3:23:21] favor of this motion. Let's give our

[3:23:22] city the foresight that it deserves, or

[3:23:24] I should say, let's continue to give our

[3:23:26] city the foresight it deserves. We can't

[3:23:29] use 20th century zoning to solve 21st

[3:23:32] century growth challenges. Density

[3:23:34] transfers give us a market-driven way to

[3:23:37] steer the growth to the right locations.

[3:23:39] while protecting the unique identity of

[3:23:41] our established neighborhoods. And this

[3:23:44] isn't about stopping growth. It's about

[3:23:46] putting density where it actually

[3:23:48] belongs. Let's make sure our city grows

[3:23:50] smart, not just fast. And I encourage

[3:23:53] you as my colleagues and friends to vote

[3:23:55] in favor of this motion. Let's continue

[3:23:57] to give our city the foresight it

[3:23:59] deserves. Thank you.

[3:24:00] >> Thank you, Councelor Met. I actually

[3:24:02] think it's a great motion, but I'm going

[3:24:04] to ask Mr. Axia to speak to this from

[3:24:06] the perspective of staff and as a

[3:24:08] planning tool.

[3:24:11] >> Thank you and through through you mayor.

[3:24:13] So uh I I'll refer to the motion and and

[3:24:15] thank you councelor for putting this one

[3:24:16] on the floor. Um the the last part of it

[3:24:19] in terms of now therefore be it resolved

[3:24:22] council directs staff to research TDR

[3:24:24] policies across Canada and report back

[3:24:26] to to the new council by the end of 2027

[3:24:30] with options and be best practices for

[3:24:32] consideration. So that's a that's a very

[3:24:34] open-ended that's provides some research

[3:24:36] to go do off go off staff and do some

[3:24:38] research come back with information for

[3:24:40] council to consider. So it's a very

[3:24:42] open-ended it gives us a lot of time to

[3:24:44] do that information and then I still

[3:24:46] think it allows council to have some

[3:24:47] good dialogue and debate over the

[3:24:49] information that they receive. So from a

[3:24:51] staff perspective uh we're more than

[3:24:53] happy to proceed should council wish to

[3:24:54] move forward.

[3:24:56] >> Councelor Cooper. Uh yes, as a second I

[3:24:59] don't necessarily have a a question or a

[3:25:01] comment just more something I suppose it

[3:25:03] is a comment about why this why we're

[3:25:05] doing this. Am I okay with that?

[3:25:08] >> Yes. I'm not asking any question. I just

[3:25:10] like to comment on why we Okay, thank

[3:25:12] you. Um yes, this is um I've this is

[3:25:15] actually quite new to me. I've been

[3:25:17] looking into this though and it's it's

[3:25:18] um it's very interesting. It's this is a tool as council meta said that can um

[3:25:24] that can actually avoid um potentially

[3:25:26] avoid us going to the OOLT. Um we get we

[3:25:29] get a we get a development um that's

[3:25:31] proposed somewhere. This is just a

[3:25:32] scenario. A development is proposed

[3:25:34] somewhere and for whatever reason you

[3:25:36] know with her heritage or you know the

[3:25:38] neighbors not into it. We want to bring

[3:25:39] it down from 20 to 10 stories. Um it's

[3:25:42] either yes or no. It goes off to the

[3:25:43] OOLT. Well, in this case, um the

[3:25:45] developer, we can have another option to

[3:25:47] go the developer with where they're

[3:25:48] basically taking um their density as

[3:25:51] credits and they can sell it to somebody

[3:25:53] else, say over in the Hesper secondary

[3:25:56] plan on Hesper Road for a much more

[3:25:57] appropriate area. So, the initial um the

[3:26:01] initial uh development that we want to

[3:26:03] keep low for whatever reason stays low.

[3:26:07] The developers happy because they still

[3:26:09] get the they still get money. They've

[3:26:10] sold the value that was inherent in that

[3:26:13] height. it goes elsewhere to a more

[3:26:15] appropriate area and it becomes it's a

[3:26:17] situation that really um fosters a

[3:26:20] win-win situation very potentially keep

[3:26:22] us away from the OOLT um when you

[3:26:25] actually look into this this makes a lot

[3:26:27] of sense and I don't see any negatives

[3:26:29] to it doesn't mean we have to use it

[3:26:31] anybody has to use it but it's there as

[3:26:33] an option and I I urge all of you to

[3:26:36] look into and I know staff will um will

[3:26:38] come back with a good report on this but

[3:26:40] it's I found it very interesting very Few negatives. Thank you.

[3:26:44] >> For someone who said he didn't know much

[3:26:46] about it, you seem to know more than you

[3:26:48] could write the report yourself. I think

[3:26:52] I Yeah. When I look at this, I think of

[3:26:54] Grand A, you know, the the W five one

[3:26:58] with the uh where we were looking for

[3:27:00] the height reduction there. That that

[3:27:02] probably would have solved that problem.

[3:27:04] Councelor Meta,

[3:27:05] >> you may jan through and I do appreciate

[3:27:08] all the feedback and the questions. I

[3:27:10] also want to emphasize that should this

[3:27:12] policy pass at some point in the future

[3:27:15] it is a public process and if there are

[3:27:18] those kind of tradeoffs that is a public

[3:27:20] process and um some municipalities

[3:27:23] actually have what they call a density

[3:27:26] register and or a density bank and I

[3:27:29] mean it it's kind of strange it's it

[3:27:31] could be complicated but it's very

[3:27:33] practical it has been done and I don't

[3:27:36] claim to know all the answers that's why

[3:27:38] I'm saying we need to get staff to

[3:27:40] review this and come back with some

[3:27:42] options. Thank you.

[3:27:44] >> Okay, I think it's a great motion. Um,

[3:27:47] we're going to call for that vote now.

[3:27:53] » Opening voting.

[3:27:59] » Closing voting.

[3:28:02] That carries unanimously.

[3:28:05] So, moving on to councelor Meta's third

[3:28:07] motion regarding community engagement

[3:28:09] expansion planning for Fiddlesticks

[3:28:11] Community Center and Parks and the

[3:28:12] Fiddlesticks catchment area. I

[3:28:15] understand you'd like to withdraw your

[3:28:16] originally worded motion regarding the

[3:28:19] Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association to

[3:28:21] replace it with the newly worded motion

[3:28:23] as published on revised agenda today.

[3:28:26] Are there any objections before I have

[3:28:28] the clerk respond to anything here

[3:28:32] to the um revised motion?

[3:28:36] I see none. Okay. Um can I have the

[3:28:39] deputy? Sorry.

[3:28:42] Oh. Oh, councelor Roberts.

[3:28:44] >> Yeah, sorry. I don't see revisions like

[3:28:47] would they be highlighted in this

[3:28:49] version or

[3:28:51] >> Please.

[3:28:52] >> Thank you and thank you, Madam Mayor. Um

[3:28:54] due to the changes being a bit more

[3:28:56] substantial than just minor like wording

[3:28:58] revisions, we replaced it um entirely

[3:29:00] with what the um new version looked like

[3:29:04] on the revised agenda.

[3:29:07] >> And sorry, was this given to us or this

[3:29:09] was just what was on our desk like when

[3:29:10] we came in?

[3:29:12] >> No, I could speak to that as well. Um

[3:29:14] but the revised agenda was published um

[3:29:17] either today or yesterday with that

[3:29:18] revised wording. That one was the one

[3:29:21] from today.

[3:29:22] >> Okay. But it wasn't it wasn't clear that

[3:29:24] it was revised. Correct. Like

[3:29:27] >> I didn't know it was revised till just

[3:29:28] the second.

[3:29:29] >> Okay. So the deputy clerk is going to

[3:29:31] speak to this.

[3:29:32] >> Okay.

[3:29:35] >> Thank you madame mayor and through you.

[3:29:36] Um so the on the revised agenda it is

[3:29:39] indicated that is it is a revised motion

[3:29:42] um from councelor and that came from

[3:29:46] discussions with staff and that was

[3:29:47] revised accordingly. Um I also the

[3:29:50] document that was in front of you is uh

[3:29:52] late correspondence that was received

[3:29:54] from the Fiddle 6 Community Center board

[3:29:56] of directors. Um this will be included

[3:29:59] in the minutes so that it is public

[3:30:00] record and just wanted to indicate that

[3:30:03] it was distributed to council but it'll

[3:30:04] be included on the minutes. So that was

[3:30:06] a document that you received um in front

[3:30:08] of you. And then like I mentioned um on

[3:30:11] the publication of the revised agenda

[3:30:12] today was the revised wording um from

[3:30:15] councelor Meta based on discussions with

[3:30:17] staff and he's presumably going to read

[3:30:20] the revised wording.

[3:30:25] » So councelor Mendo, do you have a

[3:30:27] seconder for your revised motion?

[3:30:29] >> Thank you, Mayor J.

[3:30:32] >> Yes, I do. Council Sheri,

[3:30:36] thank you. So I am going to read this

[3:30:38] motion and I would like to speak to it.

[3:30:41] Um okay so where whereas residents of

[3:30:43] the Fiddlesticks neighborhood have

[3:30:45] expressed a strong desire for an

[3:30:48] expansion of the Fiddlesticks Community

[3:30:50] Center to address growing programmatic

[3:30:52] recreational and community needs. And

[3:30:55] whereas the local neighborhood

[3:30:57] association board has identified

[3:31:00] operational design and or fiscal

[3:31:02] considerations that require further

[3:31:04] analysis and collaborative review before

[3:31:07] a capital funding commitment is

[3:31:09] considered. And whereas it is the policy

[3:31:11] of this council to ensure that major

[3:31:14] neighborhood infrastructure investments

[3:31:16] are guided by robust public input, staff

[3:31:20] expertise, and consensus among community

[3:31:23] stakeholders. Whereas planning for

[3:31:26] future capital budget cycles require

[3:31:29] timely data-driven reports to properly

[3:31:33] evaluate and prioritize municipal

[3:31:35] infrastructure funding requests.

[3:31:38] Therefore, be it resolved that city

[3:31:40] council direct staff to initiate a

[3:31:43] comprehensive community consultation and

[3:31:46] stakeholder engagement process regarding

[3:31:49] the potential expansion and facility

[3:31:52] needs of the Fiddlesticks Community

[3:31:54] Center as well as general park

[3:31:56] recreational needs for the entire

[3:31:59] Fiddlesticks catchment area and [snorts]

[3:32:02] that staff be directed to invite

[3:32:04] representatives from both the general

[3:32:06] resident population of the Fiddlesticks

[3:32:09] Catchman Area, the Fiddlesticks

[3:32:11] Neighborhood Association

[3:32:15] Executive Director, and the Fiddlesticks

[3:32:18] Neighborhood Association Board to

[3:32:20] participate actively in this review

[3:32:22] process. And that staff submit a final

[3:32:25] report to council outlining the

[3:32:28] community feedback, facility options,

[3:32:31] other recreational opportunities, and

[3:32:34] estimated financial impacts. no later

[3:32:36] than the summer of 2028 to inform

[3:32:40] deliberations for the 2029 capital

[3:32:43] budget. That was a typo at the very end

[3:32:45] and I would like to speak to it and I

[3:32:48] did make a promise to bring something

[3:32:50] forward and that's that's the reason why

[3:32:52] I'm doing it to keep my promise.

[3:32:55] >> Councelor Hamilton.

[3:32:57] >> Uh thank you mayor get through you. I

[3:32:59] just have a question if that's okay. Um

[3:33:03] okay, excellent. Um, I don't know if now

[3:33:06] is the time, but I noticed the board and

[3:33:08] the executive director of Fiddlesticks

[3:33:09] is here. Would they be able to come up

[3:33:11] and comment on this motion? I know they

[3:33:13] have a dele they submitted

[3:33:15] correspondence. Um, I'm just curious to

[3:33:17] hear their thoughts on it because their

[3:33:19] correspondence doesn't seem to match

[3:33:20] with council meta's account and

[3:33:22] obviously if we're dealing with issues

[3:33:23] pertaining to Fiddlesticks, it'd be good

[3:33:26] to hear from Fiddlesticks. Um,

[3:33:28] >> I asked them at the beginning of the

[3:33:30] evening if they wanted to and they said

[3:33:31] no.

[3:33:33] >> So, okay. Yeah, I think they thought

[3:33:34] that their letter was sufficient. Did

[3:33:37] you want to speak?

[3:33:40] >> Okay. Okay.

[3:33:48] » So, I stood before council in 2002 and

[3:33:52] >> please identify yourself.

[3:33:53] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh Kim Fowler. I am the

[3:33:55] executive director of the Fiddlesticks

[3:33:57] Community Center. Uh so back in 2002 I

[3:34:00] stood before council and uh was granted

[3:34:04] or this community center was granted the

[3:34:06] uh a trust fund and that trust the

[3:34:09] purpose of that trust fund partially was

[3:34:11] to save for this addition to the

[3:34:13] community center. So there is nobody in

[3:34:15] this room that wants to see an addition

[3:34:18] to this building more than myself and

[3:34:20] the board chair and other board members.

[3:34:23] However, this is not the time. There is

[3:34:26] a lot going on in the community that is

[3:34:29] not generally public knowledge around

[3:34:31] neighborhoods and there is concern that

[3:34:35] this money will not be used. The money

[3:34:37] that has been saved to the tune of $1.3

[3:34:39] million by the neighborhood would not

[3:34:42] potentially be used in the way it is

[3:34:44] intended. And until there are some

[3:34:47] things that are sorted among the

[3:34:48] neighborhood associations as well as the

[3:34:52] fact that we are working with city staff

[3:34:54] currently to look at space for all

[3:34:56] neighborhoods.

[3:34:58] This is just not the appropriate time in

[3:35:00] our view. This is something that I have

[3:35:02] expressed and that was not taken into

[3:35:06] consideration and this is something that

[3:35:07] my board had a healthy conversation

[3:35:09] about as well.

[3:35:11] >> So Kim, I recognize you weren't prepared

[3:35:13] to speak tonight. No,

[3:35:15] >> you did say you hadn't didn't want to

[3:35:16] get up and speak when I first came in

[3:35:18] the room. So, but I have some questions.

[3:35:20] Are you willing to take the question?

[3:35:22] >> Absolutely.

[3:35:22] >> Okay. Councelor Kimson, is this directed

[3:35:24] to Kim?

[3:35:26] >> No. Okay. Councelor Schwar, is this

[3:35:28] directed to Kim? No. You're off the hot

[3:35:31] seat. Thank Thank you for this. Thank

[3:35:33] you.

[3:35:33] >> Okay. Um, Councelor Kimson, do you want

[3:35:36] to put your question on the floor?

[3:35:39] >> Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. I

[3:35:41] guess this is a question perhaps for

[3:35:42] staff. Um, and as I'm as I'm reading

[3:35:46] this revised motion and looking at it,

[3:35:50] um, understanding the work that's

[3:35:51] currently being done with the

[3:35:52] neighborhood associations in general,

[3:35:54] and of course, W three, the Preston area

[3:35:57] does not have a neighborhood

[3:35:59] association. Um, for for many years,

[3:36:02] it's something we've discussed. We

[3:36:04] either have Preston Heights um

[3:36:06] neighborhood association ward 1 or

[3:36:08] there's Langs which I guess I should say

[3:36:10] is in Ward 3 but central Preston does

[3:36:13] not have a neighborhood association. So

[3:36:16] I guess when I look at this and with

[3:36:19] this request looking at future planning

[3:36:22] for Fiddlesticks I'm wondering is this

[3:36:24] something that I should be doing for

[3:36:27] Central Preston or is that going to be

[3:36:29] covered in the work that's already

[3:36:30] ongoing?

[3:36:38] » [snorts]

[3:36:38] >> Um, thanks for the question. And there

[3:36:40] is a feasibility study planned for 2027

[3:36:44] that includes all of the neighborhood

[3:36:45] associations. So, we've had a lot of

[3:36:47] requests from multiple associations

[3:36:50] around the need for space. And so, we've

[3:36:53] drafted a statement of work with with

[3:36:55] the neighborhood groups to kind of work

[3:36:57] on a project. And so, that's supposed to

[3:36:59] happen in 2027. and it's

[3:37:01] all-encompassing of all neighborhood

[3:37:02] groups.

[3:37:04] >> May I follow up? Um, so in that

[3:37:08] situation, is that going to include some

[3:37:10] sort of consultation with the

[3:37:12] non-organized

[3:37:14] group representing Central Preston that

[3:37:16] doesn't actually have a neighborhood

[3:37:17] association? Is there going to be a way

[3:37:19] for community consultation as part of

[3:37:21] that?

[3:37:23] So the feasibility study is specifically

[3:37:25] around the current requests

[3:37:27] [clears throat] coming in and creating a

[3:37:28] process that the city can uh apply to

[3:37:32] anyone coming in. There's a there's

[3:37:34] other work I think that we need to do

[3:37:35] around neighborhood groups and emerging

[3:37:38] groups and uh groups that are changing

[3:37:40] categories. So that's not a part of this

[3:37:43] scope, but that is in our future.

[3:37:46] Thank you,

[3:37:51] » Councelor Armeda. Um, if you want to

[3:37:54] make a comment, um, and then I'll follow

[3:37:57] up from there.

[3:37:58] >> Thank you, Mayor J. I certainly would. I

[3:38:00] would like to make some remarks. So, I I

[3:38:03] rise today to table this motion to

[3:38:05] address a critical gap in our city's

[3:38:08] recreational infrastructure. Every

[3:38:11] member on this council knows a city is

[3:38:13] not just a collection of roads and

[3:38:15] pipes. It is a tapestry of

[3:38:17] neighborhoods. And right now the fabric

[3:38:19] of the Fiddlesticks catchment area is

[3:38:22] stretching to its absolute limit.

[3:38:24] Fiddlesticks is a rightfully proud

[3:38:27] thriving community of over 17,500

[3:38:31] residents. But the demographics have

[3:38:33] fundamentally shifted since its

[3:38:35] community infrastructure was first drawn

[3:38:37] up. Over 60% of Fiddlesticks households

[3:38:41] are families with children living at

[3:38:43] home. And that is a massively higher

[3:38:45] than the citywide average of roughly

[3:38:47] 47%.

[3:38:49] At the exact same time, we are

[3:38:51] experiencing a massive demographic

[3:38:53] crest. Our city's over 50 population is

[3:38:57] projected to double in the coming

[3:38:59] decades. Fiddlesticks is facing a unique

[3:39:02] generational squeeze. We have strollers

[3:39:05] and aging seniors competing for the

[3:39:07] exact same community square footage. And

[3:39:10] the current infrastructure simply cannot

[3:39:12] hold them both anymore. And with over um

[3:39:16] 60% of Fiddlesticks homes raising kids,

[3:39:19] public spaces are not sorry, they're not

[3:39:21] a luxury. They are an essential

[3:39:24] extension of the family living room. We

[3:39:26] need this expansion or uh or either that

[3:39:29] or having more recreational facilities

[3:39:31] in our parks in that area. And I'm quite

[3:39:34] flexible either way on that. As a

[3:39:36] critical reminder, this request is for

[3:39:38] the entire Fiddlesticks Catchman area.

[3:39:41] We are not just I I'm not just talking

[3:39:43] about the brick andmortar facility at 71

[3:39:47] Catwin Boulevard, even though it is very

[3:39:49] important to me. But this review must

[3:39:51] capture our shared community parks right

[3:39:53] across the neighborhood stretching from

[3:39:56] Duncan Ferguson Park to Lions Canamera

[3:39:58] Park over to a Wayne Taylor Park and

[3:40:01] even all the way up to Whitmer Park. And

[3:40:03] let me be absolutely clear about what

[3:40:06] this motion does and what it does not

[3:40:07] do. I'm not standing here today asking

[3:40:10] for a bling check. And I I'm not

[3:40:13] standing asking for a capital funding

[3:40:15] either, even though I did kind of want

[3:40:17] to get the ball rolling on that and I

[3:40:19] left it open to future budget

[3:40:21] deliberations. But anyways, I've heard

[3:40:23] the neighborhood. I've heard the board

[3:40:25] and I feel that this at least keeps the

[3:40:28] ball rolling and I applaud staff for the work that they are doing and the

[3:40:33] studies across all of the neighborhood

[3:40:35] associations.

[3:40:36] But I represent this area. I'm held

[3:40:38] accountable by the residents. I did make

[3:40:41] a promise to bring something forward. I

[3:40:43] did and I'm keeping that promise by

[3:40:46] doing this and that is why I wanted to

[3:40:49] bring something forward to keep my

[3:40:51] promise because I did make a promise to

[3:40:53] the residents I would bring something

[3:40:55] forward.

[3:40:57] In the magic of this process lies in its

[3:40:59] collaboration and passing the motion. We

[3:41:02] are directing staff to bring the

[3:41:03] community to the table by actively

[3:41:05] consulting with the general resident

[3:41:07] population alongside the Fiddlesticks

[3:41:10] Neighborhood Association executive

[3:41:12] director and board. And we achieve three

[3:41:15] critical things. We tap into the decades

[3:41:17] of grassroots operational expertise from

[3:41:20] the people who run the programs daily.

[3:41:22] We build an unshakable community

[3:41:24] consensus on exactly what facilities and

[3:41:27] park spaces are actually needed. And we

[3:41:30] destress the project by identifying

[3:41:32] operational design or any fiscal hurdles

[3:41:35] before they ever cost the taxpayer a

[3:41:38] dime.

[3:41:39] And you know to a collective relief of

[3:41:42] staff. I'm not asking for a report

[3:41:44] tomorrow. And I am flexible on the

[3:41:46] timeline. And if we want to roll this

[3:41:49] into the review that's already, you

[3:41:51] know, underway with all of the

[3:41:52] neighborhood associations, I'm perfectly

[3:41:55] fine with that. But I want to advocate

[3:41:57] strongly for this area of the city and I

[3:42:00] want to make sure Fiddlesticks continues

[3:42:02] to be at the forefront. It is my job to

[3:42:05] advocate for them and for the

[3:42:07] neighborhood as a whole. So that's why

[3:42:09] I'm bringing this forward and I do have

[3:42:12] flexibility on how to proceed. I just

[3:42:14] don't want it to get lost in the

[3:42:16] shuffle. I want to be strong and

[3:42:18] advocate for the area. So thank you.

[3:42:22] >> Councelor Schwer, you have a comment?

[3:42:25] >> Yes. Uh, thank you, Mayor Leot. I just

[3:42:27] want to echo uh Councelor Kimson's

[3:42:30] comments. Um, because if this is

[3:42:33] something that would involve all the

[3:42:35] neighborhood associations,

[3:42:37] uh, review, I would support. Um, but we

[3:42:40] are slowly lacking also in the Preston

[3:42:43] area for a neighborhood association. So,

[3:42:46] I'd rather um, this be part of a big

[3:42:48] review rather than specific.

[3:42:52] >> Councelor Hamilton.

[3:42:54] Thank you, Mayor Le and through you. Um,

[3:42:56] and although I appreciate councilor

[3:42:58] Meadow's fortitude in sticking to his

[3:43:00] promise and uh the spirit of the motion

[3:43:02] is certainly a good one that's steeped

[3:43:03] in bringing the community together,

[3:43:05] ultimately the motion pertains heavily

[3:43:06] to Fiddlesticks Neighborhood

[3:43:07] Association. And we've just heard from

[3:43:09] the executive director and the board of

[3:43:11] Fiddlesticks Neighborhood Association

[3:43:13] that's waited three hours to essentially

[3:43:14] say that they oppose the motion. Um, and

[3:43:17] when it comes to Fiddlesticks

[3:43:18] neighborhood, I trust uh I trust Kim and

[3:43:21] I trust the board and I think they've

[3:43:22] done an amazing job uh in bringing that

[3:43:24] neighborhood to life over decades. So,

[3:43:26] uh I hear where you're coming from,

[3:43:27] councelor Meta, but I'm afraid I can't

[3:43:28] support the motion unless u fiddle

[3:43:31] fiddlesticks neighborhood association is

[3:43:32] behind it. Thanks.

[3:43:36] Um, so my comments, um, even if the

[3:43:40] board was for it, I wouldn't be able to

[3:43:43] support this because this is a big city

[3:43:46] with a lot of, uh, neighborhood

[3:43:47] associations, some of them that are

[3:43:49] very, very lacking. I think of Greenway

[3:43:52] Chaplain, for instance, they have no

[3:43:55] space. They have no room to do anything

[3:43:57] with. They don't even have green space.

[3:43:59] Um,

[3:44:01] I think that we need to listen to the

[3:44:03] board here. it's not the right time for

[3:44:06] them. There is a fe there is

[3:44:08] consultation coming. There is

[3:44:10] feasibility coming. Um and I I've got to

[3:44:13] say you are an amazing representative

[3:44:15] for your residents, councelor Meta. You

[3:44:18] always have been. And to try to keep to

[3:44:21] a promise that's commendable, very very

[3:44:23] commendable. Um

[3:44:26] I I think you're a great representative.

[3:44:29] Uh I just want to put that out there. U

[3:44:31] but I cannot support this motion. Sorry,

[3:44:34] councelor Divine.

[3:44:36] >> Yes, thank you to the chair. Um,

[3:44:40] sometimes the road to hell is paved with

[3:44:42] good intentions.

[3:44:45] I think um I understand what you're

[3:44:47] doing, but we have multiple multiple um

[3:44:54] groups in the city that um multiple

[3:44:59] neighborhood associations. Some have

[3:45:01] homes, some don't. Um, and I think we

[3:45:04] have to be very careful what we do

[3:45:06] because the model that's used in this

[3:45:08] city for neighborhood associations is a

[3:45:10] great model. It's an absolute great

[3:45:12] model. However, however,

[3:45:16] you know, some we have the halves and

[3:45:18] halves not. So, we have to in the end

[3:45:22] make sure we we everybody's equal,

[3:45:25] right? Hal has like for example the

[3:45:28] [snorts] um HSPA operated at the arena

[3:45:31] they technically don't have a home right

[3:45:34] and I I appreciate you bringing this

[3:45:37] forward but I I certainly can't support

[3:45:39] it because everybody's got to be treated

[3:45:41] equal with the neighborhood

[3:45:42] associations. Thank you. [snorts]

[3:45:45] >> Okay, we're going to put the motion the

[3:45:47] motion's on the floor. We're going to

[3:45:48] call for that vote.

[3:45:51] Opening voting,

[3:45:56] closing voting.

[3:45:59] Uh, that's defeated by vote of 1 to

[3:46:01] eight.

[3:46:05] Now, I'd like to present a motion

[3:46:07] regarding a provincial data center

[3:46:09] framework and community benefits, which

[3:46:11] has been revised to correct an error in

[3:46:13] publishing today on the revised agenda.

[3:46:15] and I'll ask the deputy clerk Chris

[3:46:18] Fereso to provide some background on the

[3:46:21] publishing of this motion.

[3:46:24] >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you.

[3:46:25] Um, so I just wanted to provide some

[3:46:27] background. This evening's addendum

[3:46:29] includes a motion from uh Mayor Liot

[3:46:31] related to data centers. Uh, the one

[3:46:32] that was published yesterday that um is

[3:46:35] pages 20 to 24. Um,

[3:46:38] Mayor Liot's motion specifically was

[3:46:40] pages 21 to 22. Um, this motion was

[3:46:43] included on the public agenda. Uh

[3:46:44] however, along with the motion, staff

[3:46:46] inadvertently published draft wording

[3:46:48] that had been prepared by staff while

[3:46:50] reviewing different options that may

[3:46:51] arise from this conversation. Um and

[3:46:53] that could be found on uh the latter two

[3:46:56] pages of that motion for the addendum

[3:46:58] that was published yesterday. I just

[3:46:59] wanted to be clear that the additional

[3:47:01] draft wording was not part of the

[3:47:03] mayor's motion and was included in

[3:47:04] error. Uh it was prepared as a draft

[3:47:07] working document only. uh based on a lot

[3:47:09] of the discussions and things that we

[3:47:11] were seeing around the province and

[3:47:13] based on some of AMO's guidance and it

[3:47:15] was not intended for publication or

[3:47:17] consideration of council. So the motion

[3:47:20] itself uh was corrected on the revised

[3:47:22] agenda that was published today and it

[3:47:24] speaks to the data centers only. The

[3:47:26] strike out portion is not uh what was to

[3:47:28] be included. Thank you.

[3:47:34] » Yeah, I have a seconder. Yes, that's

[3:47:36] councelor Ernshaw. But we need to have

[3:47:39] uh suspend the rules um which requires a

[3:47:42] two-th3 majority

[3:47:44] which we need six members of council to

[3:47:47] bring this forward tonight. So we're

[3:47:49] going to put the motion on the floor for

[3:47:51] sorry seconder to suspend the rules.

[3:47:55] Council you the sorry coun. Yes.

[3:48:02] » Now voting.

[3:48:03] >> Now we're voting on it. Yeah.

[3:48:06] Opening voting on the motion to suspend

[3:48:08] the rules.

[3:48:14] » Closing voting.

[3:48:17] That carries unanimously.

[3:48:20] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:48:23] So [snorts] the motion,

[3:48:26] let me just turn to that page.

[3:48:30] Whereas the province of Ontario has

[3:48:32] released a proposed data center playbook

[3:48:34] and is undertaking work to establish a

[3:48:36] framework for the review and approval of

[3:48:38] data center developments. And whereas

[3:48:40] the government of Canada has launched

[3:48:42] Canada's national artificial

[3:48:44] intelligence strategy AI for all to

[3:48:47] ensure sovereignty and control over our

[3:48:49] data enabled data for innovation and

[3:48:51] economic growth and protect Canadians

[3:48:54] from the risks and harms of AI. And

[3:48:57] whereas the municipalities are

[3:48:58] increasingly receiving inquiries and

[3:49:01] proposals related to data center

[3:49:02] development and require greater

[3:49:04] certainty regarding provincial

[3:49:06] direction, infrastructure planning,

[3:49:08] community benefits, and land use

[3:49:10] considerations. And whereas council

[3:49:13] recognizes the economic opportunities

[3:49:15] associated with digital infrastructure

[3:49:17] while recognizing the need for a

[3:49:19] comprehensive municipal framework before

[3:49:22] permitting additional large-scale

[3:49:23] facilities. Therefore, be it resolved

[3:49:26] that the city of Cambridge request that

[3:49:27] the province of Ontario expedite the

[3:49:29] completion and implementation of its

[3:49:31] data center playbook and associated

[3:49:33] approval framework in order to provide

[3:49:35] clarity and certainty to municipalities,

[3:49:37] utilities, and the development community

[3:49:40] and that the province be requested to

[3:49:42] work in partnership with municipalities,

[3:49:44] local distribution companies, including

[3:49:46] Granbridge Energy and industry

[3:49:48] stakeholders to establish a public good

[3:49:51] framework for data centers, including

[3:49:52] options for community benefit agree.

[3:49:54] agreements, local infrastructure

[3:49:56] investments, affordability initiatives,

[3:49:59] energy partnerships, and other measures

[3:50:01] that provide direct and lasting

[3:50:03] community be benefits to host

[3:50:05] communities. and that as part of the

[3:50:07] upcoming review of the city of Cambridge

[3:50:09] official plan, council directs staff to

[3:50:11] evaluate and identify appropriate

[3:50:14] locations and policy considerations for

[3:50:17] potentially but not necessarily future

[3:50:19] data center development to ensure land

[3:50:21] use compatibility, infrastructure

[3:50:23] readiness and alignment with community

[3:50:25] objectives. And that the review include

[3:50:27] official plan policies and designations

[3:50:29] hypers scale or otherwise zoning bylaw

[3:50:33] permissions, site plan standards,

[3:50:36] infrastructure, servicing,

[3:50:38] environmental, economic employment,

[3:50:40] taxation, public health, climate and

[3:50:42] national security considerations. that a

[3:50:44] copy of this resolution be forwarded to

[3:50:46] the Premier Doug Ford, Minister of

[3:50:49] Municipal Affairs and Housing Robert

[3:50:51] Flack, Minister of Energy and Mines

[3:50:54] Steven Leche, Minister of Public and

[3:50:56] Business Service Delivery and

[3:50:57] Procurement Steven Crawford, Minister of

[3:51:00] Housing and Infrastructure of Canada,

[3:51:02] Gregor Robertson, Minister of Artificial

[3:51:05] Intelligence and Digital Innovation,

[3:51:07] Evan Solomon, Ontario's Big City Mayors,

[3:51:10] OBCM, the Association of Municipalities

[3:51:13] of Ontario, AM O and the Federation of

[3:51:15] Canadian Municipalities FCM and all

[3:51:18] Ontario municipalities.

[3:51:20] >> A second council.

[3:51:24] >> Yes.

[3:51:27] >> Uh are there any questions

[3:51:31] councelor Shwary?

[3:51:33] >> Thank you. Are we able to add to that

[3:51:37] like request to the province to delegate

[3:51:41] more stuff or

[3:51:43] Sorry. You want to add to this? Amend

[3:51:45] the motion?

[3:51:46] >> No. Like

[3:51:48] I want to be able to talk about this not

[3:51:50] to change your motion, but like to

[3:51:53] consider other things that perhaps the province can look at. Um

[3:52:00] >> so can you give me an idea because it

[3:52:02] might be already included in the wording

[3:52:04] because the wording is pretty broad,

[3:52:06] right?

[3:52:06] >> Okay. Okay. Like for example, um if a if

[3:52:10] a data center like the one on on 17

[3:52:14] Bondro for example, they were given $450

[3:52:18] million to expand the data center and to

[3:52:22] boost it up to 60 megawatts. Would there

[3:52:24] be something in in that motion that

[3:52:27] before a data center does that, they

[3:52:29] have to come back um to a staff to bring

[3:52:32] it back to council uh and also to let us

[3:52:35] know what extra for example water load

[3:52:38] or or hydro um things like that and also

[3:52:42] other things of concern that a lot of

[3:52:45] people are having. Um I don't know if

[3:52:47] it's a city thing we have to do or or

[3:52:49] it's a province. A lot of people are

[3:52:51] complaining about the noise the data

[3:52:53] center emits and it's harmful to some

[3:52:56] people's health. I was just wondering if

[3:52:58] that would include something like that

[3:53:00] or is that something we do at a city

[3:53:02] level?

[3:53:04] >> Well, as far as far as the energy grid

[3:53:06] that's out of our hands anyway, that's

[3:53:08] part of Grand Bridge. That's why we've

[3:53:11] asked for the consultation with those

[3:53:13] entities. Um, and as far as the water,

[3:53:16] that would be the region that would be

[3:53:18] able to handle that. Um,

[3:53:23] and the noise, I think that's what we're

[3:53:25] looking at here when we send it back to

[3:53:27] staff. Correct. Am I a little bit

[3:53:30] >> through you, mayor? So, part of the

[3:53:32] motion reads to uh provide some feedback

[3:53:35] to uh the pro to the province of Ontario

[3:53:39] related to their playbook. So what you

[3:53:41] had just mentioned councelor Shweri

[3:53:44] would be some of that feedback that we

[3:53:46] could provide.

[3:53:47] >> Okay. So that's what I wanted to do.

[3:53:50] >> Yes. So the point of my motion was you

[3:53:54] know every so so many municipalities in

[3:53:56] North America and around the world are

[3:53:58] getting caught because we don't have any

[3:54:01] guidelines in place. There's nothing out

[3:54:03] there to protect the residents. And one

[3:54:05] of my big concerns when we hear that

[3:54:08] there's jobs provided, those are

[3:54:09] temporary jobs. The the construction

[3:54:11] jobs come and go, right? They're they move on from one community to the

[3:54:16] next. They're not permanent jobs. Um and

[3:54:19] uh you know, the jobs that are provided

[3:54:22] within the these buildings, there's few

[3:54:24] of them, but there is a spin-off effect

[3:54:27] that happens. And that's the same with

[3:54:29] any industry. All industries have

[3:54:31] spin-off supply companies that come into

[3:54:34] being, but because we don't have there

[3:54:38] won't be a lot of people um working

[3:54:41] here, we lose the impact of having

[3:54:43] people buy houses and pay municipal

[3:54:45] taxes that provide for the benefits. So

[3:54:47] that's why I put in here about community

[3:54:50] benefits that will provide for parks,

[3:54:52] would provide for social issues that we

[3:54:54] may not know that we're going to

[3:54:56] encounter. So that's that's why I put

[3:54:58] that in here. So, it's an it's a not a

[3:55:02] tax. I I'm not sure what we would call

[3:55:04] it, but I want staff to look at it and I

[3:55:06] want it taken to the province so that

[3:55:08] they can look at their playbook, what

[3:55:10] sort of tools that we can have in order

[3:55:13] to collect money, not not development

[3:55:16] charges, but charges that could have a

[3:55:18] different name that we can utilize for

[3:55:20] things like that. So this has been um

[3:55:24] you know I worked with the city manager

[3:55:27] on this and OBCM had also put forward a

[3:55:30] motion as well which was passed

[3:55:32] unanimously. There's a big concern with

[3:55:34] all the cities all the cities on what's

[3:55:37] coming forward. But I don't we don't

[3:55:39] want to restrict businesses that come

[3:55:42] from these data centers. They they're

[3:55:44] good. We need them. We can't be left

[3:55:46] behind in technology. We have to have

[3:55:49] these or we'll be on the losing end of

[3:55:51] them. They're very, very important to

[3:55:52] have. We need growth in this, but they

[3:55:55] need to be regulated. And that's what

[3:55:56] the federal government's doing. That's

[3:55:57] what the province is doing. And that's

[3:55:59] why we're in this motion, we're asking

[3:56:01] staff to bring forward the the um

[3:56:04] official plan amendments, zoning

[3:56:05] amendments, that sort of thing, or

[3:56:07] zoning, sorry, new ones, not amendments.

[3:56:10] Councelor Kimson.

[3:56:11] >> Um, thank you very much, Mayor Jan,

[3:56:13] through you. Um, I'm wondering if there

[3:56:17] might be an opportunity, not necessarily

[3:56:19] as part of this motion, but an

[3:56:21] opportunity for staff to put together a

[3:56:25] workshop for the next term of council on

[3:56:27] data centers. Um, because if we think

[3:56:30] back to the beginning of the term, um,

[3:56:32] you had your trip to Europe and then we

[3:56:34] had the data center come um, and get set

[3:56:37] up and and no one really thought much of

[3:56:39] it. And now we're hearing so much more

[3:56:42] and and we don't know and we're hearing

[3:56:44] a lot of hearsay and fodder. So I think

[3:56:46] it's something that would be really

[3:56:47] helpful to whoever it is around the

[3:56:49] table as well as members of the

[3:56:50] community to learn more about data

[3:56:53] centers, different types of them, how

[3:56:55] they work um just for we we know we're

[3:56:58] going to be dealing with them in the

[3:56:59] future and that would be certainly

[3:57:01] helpful information.

[3:57:03] >> That's actually something that is on the

[3:57:05] horizon. U the city manager had plans

[3:57:07] for that already. So certainly your

[3:57:10] point is well taken and that will be

[3:57:11] something that comes forward.

[3:57:13] >> Thank you.

[3:57:13] >> Oh he wants to speak to it.

[3:57:15] >> Thank you and through through you mayor.

[3:57:17] Uh we have also recently updated our

[3:57:19] website to include a page specifically

[3:57:21] regarding data centers to make sure that

[3:57:23] the correct information was all out

[3:57:25] there and as new information starts to

[3:57:27] come in we'll make sure that also gets uh collected and posted on our

[3:57:31] website.

[3:57:36] I also didn't want the public to sit out

[3:57:39] there and think that we're not doing

[3:57:41] anything about this because we're all

[3:57:43] getting emails about this. Every elected

[3:57:45] official in this province is getting

[3:57:47] emails about this and we all have

[3:57:49] concerns. We are listening to the public

[3:57:53] um about their concerns, but there is

[3:57:55] some wrong information out there. So,

[3:57:57] this will clarify that um coming forward

[3:58:00] to the new council. Um, so yeah,

[3:58:05] enough said. We'll put the motion on the

[3:58:06] floor.

[3:58:09] » Opening voting.

[3:58:15] Closing voting.

[3:58:20] That carries by vote of 90.

[3:58:24] >> So there are no notices of motion. Uh,

[3:58:28] our next order of business is motion to

[3:58:30] receive. Councelor Roberts, you have

[3:58:32] that motion.

[3:58:35] >> I'm going to put you before

[3:58:36] consideration calls.

[3:58:38] >> I do. Yes. Thank you, Mayor Jan. Moved

[3:58:40] by myself, seconded by councelor

[3:58:41] Ernshaw. Recommendation that all

[3:58:43] presentations and correspondence from

[3:58:45] the August 25th, 2026 council meeting be

[3:58:47] received.

[3:58:49] >> Okay, we'll take that vote.

[3:58:52] >> Opening voting.

[3:58:55] Closing

[3:58:58] voting

[3:59:00] that carries unanimously.

[3:59:05] » Okay. So, um, our city manager, Rob

[3:59:09] Axia, asked to make some closing remarks

[3:59:11] here. So, um, Mr. Axia, if you want to

[3:59:14] make those.

[3:59:16] >> Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to point

[3:59:18] out or highlight, uh, just a couple

[3:59:19] items. Uh first off, uh Cambridge uh

[3:59:22] senior staff and participating elected

[3:59:24] officials had a successful and

[3:59:25] productive week of advocacy at this

[3:59:28] year's Association of Municipalities of

[3:59:30] Ontario conference with delegations that

[3:59:32] focused on key priorities including

[3:59:34] health and community care supports,

[3:59:37] critical infrastructure, and modernizing

[3:59:39] municipal government. Uh the city was

[3:59:42] able to highlight local expertise,

[3:59:43] strengthen provincial uh and municipal

[3:59:45] partnerships and position Cambridge as a

[3:59:48] solution focused municipal leader. A

[3:59:50] sincere thank you is extended to

[3:59:52] council, the corporate leadership team

[3:59:54] and staff across the organization whose

[3:59:56] briefing materials, technical expertise,

[3:59:59] and day-to-day work help to support

[4:00:01] these important conversations and

[4:00:03] advance Cambridge's priorities

[4:00:05] proincially. I would also like to

[4:00:07] highlight a recent appointment.

[4:00:09] Effective September 8th, Keith Clark

[4:00:11] will be appointed as a successful

[4:00:13] applicant into the role of deputy fire

[4:00:16] chief. Keith has dedicated more than 22

[4:00:19] years of service to the Cambridge Fire

[4:00:20] Department, demonstrating strong

[4:00:22] leadership, a commitment to operational

[4:00:24] excellence, and a passion for

[4:00:26] firefighter development and public

[4:00:28] safety. We welcome Deputy Chief Clark

[4:00:30] into his new leadership role. Thank you.

[4:00:36] Okay, the next order of business is the

[4:00:37] consideration of bylaws. And before you

[4:00:39] ask that question, councelor Ernshaw,

[4:00:41] they're all good to go.

[4:00:47] » Thank you, Mayor Liot. It's moved by me

[4:00:49] and seconded by Councelor Hamilton that

[4:00:51] bylaws as listed [clears throat] on the

[4:00:53] agenda dated August 25, 2026 be adopted

[4:00:56] as follows. 18.1

[4:01:00] Bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge

[4:01:02] official plan 2012

[4:01:04] 18.2

[4:01:06] bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge

[4:01:08] zoning bylaw 26-00007

[4:01:12] 18.3

[4:01:14] bylaw to amend the City of Cambridge

[4:01:16] zoning bylaw 150-85

[4:01:20] 18.4 4 bylaw to designate the property

[4:01:24] known as 3,250 Beaverdale Road. 18.5

[4:01:30] bylaw to designate the property known as

[4:01:32] 197 West River Road.

[4:01:35] 18.6

[4:01:37] bylaw to designate the property known as

[4:01:39] 61 Cambridge Street. 18.7

[4:01:44] bylaw to exempt part lot control part of

[4:01:46] block 1158M

[4:01:49] hy-en 720 hyphen Sage Drive 18.8

[4:01:55] bylaw to amend the city of Cambridge

[4:01:56] official plan 2012.

[4:02:00] >> Thank you councelor Ernshaw. We will do

[4:02:01] that vote now.

[4:02:04] Opening voting.

[4:02:11] Closing voting.

[4:02:13] That carries unanimously.

[4:02:16] >> Next order of business is the

[4:02:17] confirmatory bylaw. Councelor Kimson,

[4:02:20] you have that one.

[4:02:26] » Thank you very much, Mayor Jan. Moved by

[4:02:27] myself and seconded by councelora.

[4:02:30] recommendation that the bylaw to confirm

[4:02:32] the proceedings of the council of the

[4:02:34] corporation of the city of Cambridge be

[4:02:36] passed.

[4:02:38] >> Thank you. And the clerk will take that

[4:02:39] vote.

[4:02:40] >> Opening voting.

[4:02:46] » Closing voting.

[4:02:48] That carries unanimously.

[4:02:53] » Councelor Cooper, you have the motion of

[4:02:55] the night.

[4:02:58] >> Thank you very much.

[4:03:00] the adjournment moved by me, seconded by

[4:03:02] council Hamilton, that the council

[4:03:04] meeting does now adjourn at 10:05 p.m.

[4:03:10] >> Thank you everyone for a very energetic

[4:03:13] debate tonight. There was some good work

[4:03:15] done here tonight. Good discussion

[4:03:16] around the horseshoe. And we'll see you

[4:03:19] on September 15th for the next Oh, I'm

[4:03:21] sorry. I did it again, didn't I? I

[4:03:23] haven't done that in a long time. We're

[4:03:24] going to vote on that. We're not going

[4:03:26] to sleep here tonight.

[4:03:28] Opening voting,

[4:03:32] closing voting.

[4:03:35] Um, that carries a vote of 7 to2. Thank

[4:03:37] you.

[4:03:38] >> Oh, okay. Somebody wants to sleep here

[4:03:40] tonight. Okay. Anyway, we'll see you on

[4:03:43] the 15th.

Council Meeting

Transcript